Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. What a waste of money!
How do you keep your knuckles from bleeding when you walk?
Mental stimulation does not seem to be your think so let me sugest maybe a Steven Segal film for your next movie going experiance or maybe a cookie cutter John Woo movie. OR you could save yourself some money and just get some shiny pieces of aluminum foil.
While CTHD was NOT a best pucture (go Traffic!) I found it highly entertaining, visually stunning and incredibly creative. It was well worth the price of admission (which I guess was free in my case cause I saw it "in conjunction" with "State and Maine" last January before all the hype made it popular. Or you could say it was $2.50.)
Please tell me some of the other movies you have hated.
-How do you keep your knuckles from bleeding when you walk?
Mental stimulation does not seem to be your think so let me sugest maybe a Steven Segal film for your next movie going experiance or maybe a cookie cutter John Woo movie. OR you could save yourself some money and just get some shiny pieces of aluminum foil.
While CTHD was NOT a best pucture (go Traffic!) I found it highly entertaining, visually stunning and incredibly creative. It was well worth the price of admission (which I guess was free in my case cause I saw it "in conjunction" with "State and Maine" last January before all the hype made it popular. Or you could say it was $2.50.)
Please tell me some of the other movies you have hated.
Mental stimulation?? Fer Chrissakes, the "philosophy" in Crouching Tiger was on a level with the typical fortune cookie. Babble babble babble. And the fighting scenes were utterly ridiculous - Jackie Chan is 500 times more realistic. As far as the "visually stunning" part is concerned, the flying stuff was mildly interesting, the first time I saw it. Then it got boring. The only semi-redeeming part about the movie is that we got to see the girl's nipples when she walked out of the water with wet clothes.
I swear, I'd rather see Exit to Eden and Showgirls, than see Crouching Tiger again.
When you reach the level of rather seeing Battlefied Earth, let me know. I had to walk out of that one, it was so crappy.
-Hank
I have BfE on .asf and I felt that it was funny bad rather than bad bad. I watched it w/ a friend and it started off as boring bad, but it became a non-stop laugh riot in the second half ("Your friendly baaar tender" LOL!). I guess you have to know sci-fi to be able to find BfE funny, but the only way to watch it is MST3K style with loads of comments.
BTW did you note the obsession w/ curtain wipes?
So it's fun if you turn it into the Rocky Horror Picture Show?
-Hank
No no, it's not a clut movie, it's a mock movie. You just sit, watch and make sarcastic comments and laugh histerically. Have you ever seen MST3K?
Yes. Ever been to Rocky Horror? That's what they do. The mocking group attained cult status.
-Hank
Some theatres now show "The Sound of Music" at night where the audience mocks it just the same way they did with "Rocky Horror".
--Mark
I have BfE on .asf and I felt that it was funny bad rather than bad bad. I watched it w/ a friend and it started off as boring bad, but it became a non-stop laugh riot in the second half ("Your friendly baaar tender" LOL!).
Really bad movies sometimes are fun to watch. Plan 9 from Outer Space is the classic of that "genre," with Exit to Eden and Showgirls as worthy contenders.
Showgirls ... yeah, I guess it was Elizabeth Berkley's, ah, "coming out" movie, having done a few years of the NBC series "Saved by the Bell".
--Mark
2010 was a dud 2001 was the the bomb !! stanley krubeck films
2k10 was a reasonable film and I'd give it a 7/10. Of course I'd give 2k01 a 9.5/10.
Well since I like mystical things Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon would be my kind of flick. But I rarely go to the movies. It's expensive. For less than double the price I can pick up the DVD in Chinatown.
Bad movies, how about garbage like "Tomcats" and "The Mexican". Now those are trash movies (just my opinion from what I've seen in TV previews).
Besides I hear the girls in Crouching Tiger,Hidden Dragon are beautiful. It just puts a big, big spell on me. :-)
But of course a train movie easily beats them all!
It's all a matter of opinion. I think Forrest Gump SUX!!! But my opinion on this is definitely in the minority.
I absolutely loved "Crouching Tiger". It wasn't meant to be a realistic movie, just a mystical one.
Now if you want to talk about movies that REALLY suck, then just bring up any movie starring Pauly Shore. "Jury Duty" was the only movie that I ever walked out on. Blecch!
Jury Duty was actually his BEST effort. You want a bad Pauly Shore movie, try 'Biodome'.
Although the quality significantly improves if you're incredibly drunk (or stoned, I'm told)
-Hank
how about " the attack of the killer tomatoes " & " mothra " .........???????
If you're drunk enough to pass out, it's an even better movie, though merely getting drunk enuogh to the point of ralphing during the film would be a more appropriate critque of Mr. Shore's efforts.
You have no taste.
-Hank
I haven't seen Crouching Tiger... (yet, I plan on it soon), but it must suck; no subway scenes :P.
That said, I saw Someone Like You over the weekend. Nothing inside the subway, as the characters are typical New York-set romantic comedy stock and only travel by cab; however, there's a nice shot of Astor Place with the entrance kiosk, and one sidewalk scene where they walk by "23 Street Station" on the N/R, with ORANGE bullets. Man, these Manhattan Bridge changes are getting confusing :). A pre-1990 RTS crossed in the background in one scene as well.
And, since this is the FilmTalk subthread, I'll say it was predictable, but cute, and the male gender is redeemed at the end, so you don't walk away totally emasculated :).
Keeping the Faith has a couple of brief subway shots, both of which are on R-32s or R-38s at what appears to be Hoyt-Schermerhorn (one of the outer tracks) or possibly Broadway-Lafayette.
I'm sure most of you have seen Ghost...Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg. Watched it a couple of nights ago so had to put in a plug.You'd love it, besides the story is excellent which a lot of movies lack.
Lots of R32 and R38 scenes; a little unlikely stuff like Swayze being on a A train in Brooklyn [I guess] and in the same scenario the train he's on is coming out of the Broadway line tunnel at Dyckman, which quickly changes to the scene at Broadway and Myrtle.
If you haven't seen it its great.
Was Ghost the last movie to be filled in the lower level of 42nd St / 8th Ave?
--Mark
I'd have no idea but it was neat to see action thru that station in tne movie. Hopefully someone else can advise.
>>>I haven't seen Crouching Tiger... (yet, I plan on it soon), but it must suck; no subway scenes :P<<<
IMO, it sucks because IT's SUBTITLED and they don't promote this fact. I HATE subtitled movies! Too much work, just don't like 'em.
Peace,
ANDEE
IMO, it sucks because IT's SUBTITLED and they don't promote this fact. I HATE subtitled movies! Too much work, just don't like 'em.
At the theater where my wife and I saw Crouching Tiger (Brookhaven Multiplex, Medford LI), the sign listing movie times said it was subtitled, and the ticket seller mentioned it to us. Guess they've had some complaints. Interestingly, even though the movie is in Mandarin Chinese, two of the stars (Michelle Yeow and the male lead) spoke that language very poorly. While they were coached in it before filming, their accents are said to be very obvious to Mandarin speakers.
Anyway, getting things a bit back on-topic, there was a subway-related blooper of sorts in the movie The Astronaut's Wife, which I saw on video maybe a year ago. I hardly remember anything about the movie except this scene. One character is coming up the steps from a subway entrance when he (or maybe she, that's how little I remember of the movie) sees a couple of people he/she knows talking on the sidewalk. He/she wants to overhear the conversation without being seen. This was possible because there was a solid wall around the sides of the stairway opening, not the open-bar style railings that are actually used. A minor point, I suppose, but it was so clearly wrong that it stuck in my mind.
I seem to recall that the station was supposed to be City Hall on the N/R.
Yes, you are correct about that scene in the astronauts wife, I remember it well, they had some kind of corrugated metal around the entrance to the station.
Peace,
ANDEE
Reading is work for you?
Peace,
ANDEE
No, but I don't go to movies to read.
Peace,
ANDEE
I'm not crazy about subtitles either. I prefer my movies to be badly dubbed.
The star of the movie dosen't need a subway--she can fly!
I rather enjoyed the movie myself.
:-) Andrew
Go see "The Joy Luck Club" for another "great movie". Yeecchhh!!
--Mark
Hi:
Does anyone know anything about the database MTA uses to maintain its schedules? I'm trying to create a little database of times for myself to do some comparisons, but trying to parse the PDF schedules into a database is, well, painful.
Does anyone know of other formats for MTA schedules besides the Acrobat files? More importantly, can anyone say what database the MTA uses to maintain its schedules? Is there a contact person for such interests?
Thanks.
Me too. I miss the old HTML tables with ALL the times. I hate the words "5-6 minutes until..."
When it writes every 5 minutes it makes more sense. If every train is at X:X0 and X:X5, it doesn't make sense to list each time. Same thing if it's X:X1 and X:X6 and X:X3 and X:X8 etc.
I have no problems with trains every 5 minutes. My problem is with "timetable" that stateds trains every 4-6 minutes. That goes beyond the simply saving paper; it destroys valuable information.
In the perfect utopia you live in Steve, yes. In the real world, that listing offers valuable information on the variation of service to expect, along with sufficient data for most travelers (except for you, of course) to effectively use the system. Doing more would be more costly than it's worth.
The problem I have with the new schedule information (basically scanning in the paper schedules) is that sometimes it says every 7-8 minutes, every 8-9 minutes, or every 10 minutes.
If you have to be somewhere (ie. work, an appointment of some sort), you need to plan your trip worst case. You probably ought to leave a 5-6 minute margin for error anyway, but beyond that you should be able to arrive at the station a couple of minutes before a scheduled train and be certain of less than a five minute wait. I say, if it's more than every 4-6 minutes, let the passengers know the ETA of every train, at least on line.
Maybe to print it all out. However, in this digital age, there could be an interface to the schedule database.
This presumes (TOs?/Anyone?) that the MTA knows when it is going to dispatch a train out of a yard, what cars it’s going to put into the train and who is going to be the TO & CR.
Now I don’t think that the last two pieces of information should be public (TOs & CRs should have some expectation of privacy) but the rest of the information shouldn’t exactly be secret (and it would give rail fans an excellent opportunity work out where to go to see what trains etc, etc).
The only downside is that it gives people an opportunity to compare schedule to performance and work out just how dismal reality is.
John.
Doing more would be more costly than it's worth.
Actually there is a legal requirement properly enumerate every train in a published schedule. There are additional requirements that the TA also ignores.
"Actually there is a legal requirement properly enumerate every train in a published schedule. There are additional requirements that the TA also ignores. "
Really? Where? Are you sure about that interpretation? Which law school did you say you graduated from?
Actually there is a legal requirement they properly enumerate every train in a published schedule. There are additional requirements that
the TA also ignores. "
Really? Where?
From the NY State Assembly Website
Public Authorities
TITLE 9
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
S 1204. General powers of the authority.
16-a. The authority shall establish and publish or cause to be published schedules for all passenger transportation services under its operation. Such schedules shall include the estimated departure and arrival time at each terminal point of each route except that, on lines where the headway time during the period between six A.M. and seven P.M. is less than ten minutes, such headway time alone may be listed for that period. Such schedules shall also show the elapsed running time between the terminal and each station. Schedules shall be made available at each facility on the applicable route at which tokens or tickets are sold and shall be posted at each appropriate station operated by the authority.
Which schedules do you think actually fulfill these requirements?
Smells like some savvy constitutional lawyer has an article 78 proceeding to have some fun with. Ah yes, I miss the world of "shall" - service by edict. Not. I can see it now ... "Mr. Kalikow, it is my understanding that a D train from 205th street to Coney Island should perform the run in 72 minutes. Would you care to explain to this panel why it routinely comes in at just over 90?" Oh yeah ... this is a sidewalk act I'd PAY to see. :)
The MTA's schedule already satisfies the requirement. Notice the word "estimated." You're blowing smoke (and hot air).
The law mentions "headway time" singular not plural. "Every 4-6 minutes" does not fit this definition. "Every 5 minutes" does. I am not adverse to saving paper so long as information is not destroyed.
The law also requires that the elapsed time to every station be included. Only a few TA schedules provide such information - such as those for shuttle lines.
I don't see a problem with it. But I'm willing to let an attorney (someone with training and expertise in this) explain it.
How about a law student's view? I posed the question of interpretation to my daughter (a first-year law student at Georgetown) and she agrees with you, Ron. It was a quick discussion without resorting to serious research - she just called to discuss Passover plans and I snuck the question in before handing the phone to my wife.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Thank you! And without having to sign a retainer letter!
Happy Passover, and Easter to all!
[Which schedules do you think actually fulfill these requirements?]
Under the MTA, The timetables for the railroads (LIRR, MNCR, SIR), and those for the shuttle lines (42, FA, RP). In the late 1970's, timetables were published. They were about the size of those individual station LIRR timetables (wallet-sized). They listed the departure times from the terminal and the elapsed running time between stations. They carried some advertisements, too. My aunt has one for the D and one for the E. Sadly, they are no more.
Now there are these monstrosities of schedules that don't even tell when a southbound A train will leave 191st Street bound for Far Rockaway! In fact, you would need TWO shedules to figure that out! Same thing for the F! If I'm at Union Turnpike going to 4th Avenue and want to know when the train will get there, I also have to look at two different schedules. Then there's that annoying "Then every x to y minutes until" that drives everyone nuts when your train is listed on one and falls under this "curse" on the other! It's crazy, I tell you! Why even bother printing two different schedules? The way I see it, one line, one schedule brochure. Simple as that. Better yet, you could compile all those timetables into a book and distribute that throughout the system. The way they should do it is the way the railroads should do it: List every stop, list every train. If trains leave at an interval that is less than 10 minutes, then it's OK to say (then every 10 minutes until...) Never use a range (every x to y minutes until...) It just makes absoulutely no sense whatsoever!
They used to (the 1997 edition was the last) have a table showing the travel time between any two stops on the line. I miss those, but 8 minutes from Continental to Sutphin / Archer seems a tad fantastic to me (the only value I remember).
The HBLR doesn't fulfill this. They do have the full timetable but it is only put in station signs, not in the customer things. Toilet paper is a better use for the customer timetable than planning a trip.
BTW: The Rockaway Park A has a complete schedule showing all five trains with departure times from 59, 42, W4, Chambers, Jay, Rockaway Blvd, and all stops Broad Channel to Rock Pk.
Stephen has a valid point, but somehow you enjoy ignoring it...
BTW don't remember you published lately!
Arti
"Stephen has a valid point, but somehow you enjoy ignoring it..."
I'm not ignoring it. I'm specifically challenging it. Steve makes an assertion without providing evidence. Let him prove it.
I forget the name of it, but the LIRR uses a commercial "schedule maker" database program. It probably figures the even more complicated crew assignments as well as the train times.
My experience with specialized database software suggests that it would be inaccessible to ordinary mortals without a lot of railroad cooperation (not just access to the raw data, but access to the program). I'd love to take a look at it myself.
"I forget the name of it, but the LIRR uses a commercial "schedule maker" database program. It probably figures the even more complicated crew assignments as well as the train times.
My experience with specialized database software suggests that it would be inaccessible to ordinary mortals without a lot of railroad cooperation (not just access to the raw data, but access to the program). I'd love to take a look at it myself."
There's a company called Ascent Technology in Boston that used AI to help airlines assign aircraft to gates. The idea was that an average airline could save $100,000 a day in jet fuel because the plane didn't taxi as much coming off the runway. It worked, but developing it cost a hell of a lot...
Yes, but if the software cost $10m, then one airline could amortize this in less than a year (somewhere between 100-300 days, depending on the interest rate).
Multiple airlines could amortize this in less time, and also the jet fuel is significant! It’s a non-renewable resource (as opposed to programmers :-))
John.
Pardon me if this has been discussed before.
I just read the NY Daily News Online reports of subway overcrowding, and noticed an unusual story. A woman deliberately takes four - I said FOUR - trains to work in her morning commute! Starting on the R at Rego Park, she changes to the F at Roosevelt-Jackson, then the B somewhere on 6th Ave., and finally the 1/9 at Columbus to 116 St.
HUH?!
I'm sure all of these trains, and their platforms, are crowded. Why go through all that when she can use half as many trains? Why not stay on the R to Times Sq. and transfer directly to the IRT? Changing to an express at Roosevelt doesn't save any time if she takes two trains after that. If she must avoid the Square, she can take that F to 14 St. and change to the 1/9 there. Or, how about taking that B to 116 and walking? Or, get the E at Roosevelt instead, and then the C at 50 or 42?
She can't have much of a problem with walking, since she chooses to change crowded trains so often...
Of course, her destination may be west of B'way at 116, which would be a hike from the IND (and in a so-called "bad area"). But still, I'd rather deal with Times Sq. than to take four trains.
Keep in mind that 116th on the IRT and 116th on the IND are in different worlds. They're separated by a significant change in elevation via a scary park.
That said, if she doesn't want the local in Queens, she should take the E directly to 42nd and catch the IRT there. If she doesn't want the long walk, she should change to the B/D downstairs at 7th Avenue -- four trains, but less out of the way than the F. Assuming rush hours, even transferring at 53rd and Madison to the M4 Limited is worth consideration.
The real problem is that, north of 42nd Street, the 1/2/3/9 is effectively isolated from other lines. There's 59th, but that's only a local stop; past that, the only transfer point in Manhattan is way up at 168th. Even at 42nd, the IND transfer is through a long passageway.
The lines are also arranged under the assumption that no one is going from Queens north in Manhattan. On the East Side, conventional transfers take care of the problem, and the IND has 7th Avenue (which was stupidly built with all southbound trains on one level and all northbound and Queens-bound trains on the other, so everybody has to go downstairs to transfer), but, except the 7, all the Queens lines turn south before meeting the 1/9.
The TA could easily install a three-way transfer between 7th Avenue on the B/D/E, 50th Street on the 1/9, and 49th Street on the N/R, which would at least help somewhat.
Notice, also, that my proposal of running the 2nd Avenue line across 125th Street would have helped a great deal. She could take the R or E/F to 2nd and then zip straight up to 125th and Broadway, where she could either walk to 116th (it's actually over a half-mile since 125th slants northward as it approaches the Hudson) or transfer to the 1/9 or the M4/M104 to complete her trip.
What I find oddest of all is that someone who works at or near Columbia lives in Queens. Why put yourself through that agony?
What if you were already living in Queens and got a nice offer to work in one of Columbia U's high-tech startups? The Audubon Center (168th St) is full of them. If you didn't want to move, or couldn't relocate right away, you do what you have to do.
I was negotiating with a start-up firm there at one time. It was very nice to see what kinds of positive things that place has done for the immediate neighborhood.
Maybe I should have asked why anyone would want to live in Queens to begin with.
[Maybe I should have asked why anyone would want to live in Queens begin with.]
Maybe I should answer: it's because there are some people who (gasp!) actually cannot afford Manhattan. The Columbia University area is so expensive - the AVERAGE co-op apartment costs $500+ per square foot - that most Columbia faculty can't even afford to live there.
My grin somehow vanished. (Yes, I entified my angle brackets. They got unentified without asking my permission.)
My (earlier) point was simply that, seeing how painful the commute is from most of Queens to the Columbia area, Queens is a silly place to live for someone who has to commute there. Morningside Heights may be out of reach for many, but that's where the subway steps in. Even without resorting(!) to the subway, I'm sure there are inexpensive apartments available a few blocks north and/or east of Columbia, in easy walking distance.
Most of Manhattan is for the wealthy except Harlem and the lower East side.
Everything north of 110th Street is Harlem now?
The sad fact of life is that Manhattan is fast becoming an ultra-exclusive enclave. Did you read where Barbra Streisand is having trouble selling her CPW apartment? Not because no one can match her asking price (several people have), but because the building's co-op board keeps rejecting prospective tenants. No one's "Good Enough" to live there! Mariah Carey offered $8 million for the unit, but was turned down because of her friendships with rappers. More recently, an "ordinary businessman" was also spurned. As a result, the value of Streisand's unit has steadily declined. I have a feeling that if Jesus himself were resurrected, and applied for the apartment, he would be turned down due to his prior association with a known "woman of ill repute..."
And now that Rudy and Disney have trained their sights on Harlem, the gentrification process will move north of 116 St.
I have a feeling that if Jesus himself were resurrected, and applied for the apartment, he would be turned down due to his prior association with a known "woman of ill repute..."
And co-op board would never accept the long hair and beard.
Nonsense.
Much as many around here detest it, rent control assures economic diversity even in the most desirable neighborhoods.
How do you define "wealthy"? Is the middle class "wealthy"? Not all of Manhattan is Park Avenue.
Even without rent control, I know many recent college graduates, just entering the work force, who have moved to the Upper West Side and Upper East Side. Surely they're not wealthy (at least not yet)! They generally share small apartments on the side streets. And what about those who haven't even graduated yet -- the students at the various colleges and universities in Manhattan?
Please, take a look around Manhattan -- all of it -- before making sweeping claims about it.
Even without rent control, I know many recent college graduates, just entering the work force, who have moved to the Upper West Side and Upper East Side. Surely they're not wealthy (at least not yet)! They generally share small apartments on the side streets. And what about those who haven't even graduated yet -- the students at the various colleges and universities in Manhattan?
But sharing's not for everyone. It might seem okay at age 22, but at 32 it's a different story.
Marriage?
It doesn't seem right at 22 either. Considering how much more a two-bedroom costs compared to a studio, it makes more sense to rent a studio alone.
But then again, people who dorm in college share a room with someone else, and a bathroom with 20 other people.
How do you define "wealthy"? Is the middle class "wealthy"? Not all of Manhattan is Park Avenue.
To him, $50,000 a year is wealthy.
Much as many around here detest it, rent control assures economic diversity even in the most desirable neighborhoods.
It's price-fixing, and it GUARANTEES a shortage of good housing, except for those who have connections.
I never claimed otherwise.
Um........I lived in Greenwich Village for 24 years on West 11th Street. When I got my first place in Kew Gardens, it felt like living in the country. It's nice to not have any noise from police cars and intoxicated persons at 3 am.
I love Queens. And I'll never live in Manhattan ever again.
As far as the crazy commuting woman goes, the question shouldn't be why she lives in Queens, the question should be why the woman would accept a job with a hellish commute in the first place.
As far as the crazy commuting woman goes, the question shouldn't be why she lives in Queens, the question should be why the woman would accept a job with a hellish commute in the first place.
Maybe for the reason I accepted a job in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey back in 1993, even though I lived 100 miles away in Connecticut - it was a very good offer.
>>>Maybe for the reason I accepted a job in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey back in 1993, even though I lived 100 miles away in Connecticut - it was a very good offer.<<<
Obviously you had a car unlike Madam Wacko.
Obviously you had a car unlike Madam Wacko.
In 1979, I used to commute from Ringwood, NJ (about 80-90 minutes away from the Port Authority Bus Terminal) to 193rd St. in Jamaica. Now that was a hellish commute. But it gave me a job doing the work I was good at, when I needed a job urgently (I'd just been RIF'd from a job in Manhattan unexpectedly). I kept it for over a year, and then got another job back in Manhattan.
I've been commuting from North Carolina to New Jersey for over five years now - 465 miles one way. Of course, I don't do it every day, or even every week, but it's still a long commute when I do it.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
And a friend of mine frequently has to commute from Baltimore to Providence RI by plane, often with only a few hours' notice. It's only an hour on a non-stop, but still a pain in the tail. This has happened at least once a week since February. She had never flown before then!
But to take four crowded subway trains twice each day, five days a week, would be hell on earth even for a railfan.
[R to the F to the B to the 1/9]
WOW. That poor lady might actually do better by bus: She could take the Q72 north on Junction Blvd, then change at 94th Street & 23rd Avenue for the M60 directly to the Columbia campus. The only drawbacks are the loop through LaGuardia Airport (toward Manhattan) and the Triborough Bridge (both directions).
The rush hour M60 is awful -- lots of rude fare beaters in Queens (IME) and a very slow ride across 125th Street.
There is a technical term for this woman.................it's called BRAIN DEAD!
Wait - wouldn't the easiest thing be to stay on the R and change to the 1 at Times Square? So you go local. BIG DEAL! She'd still get there in half the time probably, when you factor in waiting time for the express and the other trains.
There is a technical term for this woman.....
RAILFAN IN THE MAKING.
Who else'd take 4 trains when one simple transfer
would do just fine?
No way... no railfan would ditch an R-46 on the F for an R-68 on the B.
Says you! I'd probably go with the R68, all other things being equal.
Though neither the 68 nor 46 is much fun for subfanning.
:-) Andrew
No railfan would board the R46 to begin with. A true railfan -- and anyone going her way who can read a subway map -- would take the E instead of the F.
I didn't read the article, but when going to the upper west side from central Queens, I always found it made sense to change at Roosevelt from the E/F to the 7. That transfer's a bit of a hassle, but then there's a nice easy transfer between the 7 and 1/2/3/9, which beats the hell out of the loooooooong walf between 8th and 7th. I suppose the R makes sense too. Maybe I just like the IRT. And OK, you bring it up to four trains by using the 2/3 to 96th, but that saves you time.
:-D Andrew
I haven't done that 7 - 1/2/3/9 transfer at rush hour lately. Now that the redundant staircases have been closed off, how bad are the crowds?
A little worse, I'd say. but it's still a far easier transfer between the (1)(2)(3)(9) and the (7) than the (E) or the (F), which require either a long walk or an intermediate transfer. And even the (N)(R) to the (1)(2)(3)(9) requires two seperate stair climbs--from the platform to the mezanine then to the other platform.
:-) Andrew
Yeah, but how many sets of stairs is she using on her current ride? Okay, the R to the F is across the platform. But the F to the B involves two sets of stairs (downtown to uptown), and then the B to the 1/9 is at least one more set. Not to mention crowded platforms and trains all the way. What's she gonna do when Queens Blvd. gets turned every which way but crazy come July?
Hell...if she has an unlimited Metrocard she can take that R to 49 St/7 Av, exit the system, walk the short block to B'way, and get the 1/9 at 50 St. That's still better than those four trains (except in bad weather), and likely a LOT quicker. But I'd just deal with the transfer at TSQ.
Yeah, but how many sets of stairs is she using on her current ride? Okay, the R to the F is across the platform. But the F to the B involves two sets of stairs (downtown to uptown), and then the B to the 1/9 is at least one more set. Not to mention crowded platforms and trains all the way. What's she gonna do when Queens Blvd. gets turned every which way but crazy come July?
Hell...if she has an unlimited Metrocard she can take that R to 49 St/7 Av, exit the system, walk the short block to B'way, and get the 1/9 at 50 St. That's still better than those four trains (except in bad weather), and likely a LOT quicker. But I'd just deal with the transfer at TSQ.
In the subway film documentary it says their is a scene with 2 characters that meet @ a station on the Flushing Line El. The car used in that scene was R22 #7449 painted in Whitebird. Were some R22 running on the #7 line back around the mid-1980s when the film debuted?
I'm assuming this is the last part of their series that began in last Sunday's paper. Even Gene Russianoff is pretty kind to the MTA in his quote, and some of the solutions proposed are pretty common sense. But I'm waiting to see how they implement Solution No. 5 on the list.
Experts map out subway solutions
[I'm assuming this is the last part of their series that began in last Sunday's paper. Even Gene Russianoff is pretty kind to the MTA in his quote, and some of the solutions proposed are pretty common sense. But I'm waiting to see how they implement Solution No. 5 on the list.]
I'm struck by the fact that they're still discarding cars!
"The TA already has ordered more than 1,700 new subway cars, many to replace decades-old rigs, as part of a plan to increase its fleet by 415 cars over the the next four years."
And in the article it links to, they complain about Queens corridor capacity, without mentioning that the MTA runs 600' instead of 660' trains, and the 15 mph curve in front of GCT. Why sould a 15 mph zone slow down traffic?
Then there are the usual gripes about the passengers. Door holding aside, I don't see how you are going to change the behavior of people who are packed like sardines.
Well, one of the reccomendations was to save more of the Redbirds than currently planned in order to increase capacity (at least on the A Division).
As for the 660 foot option, Charlie Patterson and the TA cast the die against that back in 1958 when they decided from now on all cars would come in married pairs (R-33WFs excepted), which meant all the 60-foot cars delivered to the B Division between 1960 and 1970 could only be run in multiples of 120-foot lengths. The only singles delivered to the B Division since then were the R-68s, and that wouldn't help on Queens Blvd., because a nine-car train of R-68s would come in at 675 feet.
The only singles delivered to the B Division since then were the R-68s, and that wouldn't help on Queens Blvd., because a nine-car train of R-68s would come in at 675 feet.]
One possibility that we discussed here a while back would be to run 75 car trains in the 660 foot station, original IRT style with a 7-1/2 foot overhang at each end.
Another possibility--run 12 60' cars, and leave the last one empty.
Then again, they could order some 60' singles . . .
Ordering single cars with full cab controls significantly increases the cost of purchasing new subway fleets, and (esp. with full-width cabs) reduces seating capacity per car.
Ordering single cars with full cab controls significantly increases the cost of purchasing new subway fleets, and (esp. with full-width cabs) reduces seating capacity per car.
There are two issues here that are not related: do full width cabs reduce passenger capacity and do single unit cars really cost more. The answer to both is no.
I recall that the HV's had full width cabs. However these cabs would fold up, when they were not required. It is not impossible to imagine a similar design that would permit a half-width or full-width fold up cab. Such a system would occupy only 2 cab widths on a conventional TO/CR train and still permit OPTO.
There are costs associated with married-unit cars in addition to initial purchase price and maintenance. BTW the official TA reason for going to married pairs was weight reduction not cost reduction (1964). The additional costs are decreased availability and lack of flexibility.
The flexibility issue is quite dramatic in a system that has as much merging and diverging as NYC. The only way to avoid switching delays is to schedule equal frequencies. Similarly, minimum dwell times are obtained with equal load factors between trains. Not all branches require full train length trains for equal load factors. A case in point, with single unit cars can be seen from the IND services in the early 1950's.
The A and D expresses each ran 15 tph, 10-car trains. The BB and CC locals each ran 15 tph but the CC ran 10-car trains between Bedford Park and Bway-Lafayette and the BB ran 8-car trains between 168th and 34th St. This permitted the a no-delay merge between the A&D and the BB&CC at 145th as well as a no-delay merge between the BB&D at 59th.
With married pairs or link bars, both the BB and CC would have to be full length despite the demand on CPW and despite the BB having only 2 stations to itself. This means that either 2 unnecessary would have to be added to every BB or that the frequencies would have to be adjusted to include scheduled switching delays. Either way this represents a requirement for additional cars to maintain the same service level. These costs are not included in the TA's equation. They would not make management look good.
as usual, you freely dispense criticism while ignoring the weaknesses of your own plan.
A folding cab sounds interesting. How much extra would that cost in terms of car redesign? More to the point, why pay for additional electronics (a very significant part of any new car, airplane, train etc.) when you don't have to?
There are limitations to flexibility, it's true - but how much time is spent breaking and reforming trains to do that, and how much of that "flexibility" is a chore that eats more time and resources than it's worth?
"There are costs associated with married-unit cars in addition to initial purchase price and maintenance. BTW the official TA reason for going to married pairs was weight reduction not cost reduction (1964)."
Hey Steve, you're slipping! You don't mind using 1964 data when you have 1957 data handy! Why not use cost figures from 1940?
The fact is, starting from the 1970's and beyond, subway car design included a lot of electronics that didn't exist in 1964. This was true of the R-44 and R-46, even though they were never used as intended. It is also true of the R-142's. So the MTA's gained significant cost savings by using married pairs this way.
Not looking at the big picture doesn't make Mr. Baumann look very good.
A folding cab sounds interesting. How much extra would that cost in terms of car redesign?
Halfable cabs are standard on transit systems around the world. The Philly BSS, DC Metro, Metroliner EMU's and all DMU's class 158 and lower in the UK have halfable cabs. All it requires is a two position door.
The R-62 even has a two position door, and even allows the open half of the cab to be folded into the remainder of the cabin.
A folding cab sounds interesting. How much extra would that cost in terms of car redesign?
The idea is that it is designed into the cars as ordered. That's how the IRT did it. It does not cost any more that way.
More to the point, why pay for additional electronics (a very significant part of any new car, airplane, train etc.) when you don't have to?
There has been very little electronics until the current orders. This is one of the reasons the TA designs are so expensive. They would still use 60 year old technology, if they could find somebody who still supply it.
"There are costs associated with married-unit cars in addition to initial purchase price and maintenance. BTW the official TA reason for going to married pairs was weight reduction not cost reduction (1964)."
Hey Steve, you're slipping! You don't mind using 1964 data when you have 1957 data handy! Why not use cost figures from 1940?
The reason I cited 1964 is because the TA published some insight into their thinking on this subject at that time. You or anyone else can verify my statement by going through the NY Times advertising supplement that the TA sponsored just prior to the opening of the Worlds Fair.
The fact is, starting from the 1970's and beyond, subway car design included a lot of electronics that didn't exist in 1964. This was
true of the R-44 and R-46, even though they were never used as intended.
Most industries have experienced significant cost savings by using electronics in their designs.
"Most industries have experienced significant cost savings by using electronics in their designs."
You're showing off your ignorance here, Steve. Industries have saved money in the manufacturring process, but the proportion of a product's purchase price taken by electronics has shot up tremendously. For example, the avionics packages on modern aircraft can cost as much as the aircraft itself. They improve the aircraft's performance, and their efficiency of use, but not their purchase price. Ditto for subway trains. And this trend began in the late 1960's.
Industries have saved money in the manufacturring process, but the proportion of a product's purchase price taken by electronics has shot up tremendously. For example, the avionics packages on modern aircraft can cost as much as the aircraft itself.
You have to distinguish between cost and functionality. The cost of individual electronic components has gone down. It has gone so far down that functions that would have been too expensive to implement decades ago are now routinely implemented. So, previously if function X cost $100 and function Y cost $1 million then only function X was implemented. Today function X costs $50 and function Y costs $5,000 and both are implemented.
Aircraft cost is a good example. Airbus recognized the cost savings of "fly by wire" technology over hydraulic lines; Boeing did not. That is the principle reason why Airbus has been able to beat Boeing in price.
"You have to distinguish between cost and functionality. The cost of individual electronic components has gone down. It has gone so far down that functions that would have been too expensive to implement decades ago are now routinely implemented. So, previously if function X cost $100 and function Y cost $1 million then only function X was implemented. Today function X costs $50 and function Y costs $5,000 and both are implemented."
Electronic components are cheaper, assuming that the buyer does not impose additional requirements which increase costs. But software development has gotten more expensive - because we still write code by hand. The USS Nautilus, cerca 1955, probably had a handful of lines of assembler or machine code. The USS Seawolf, cerca 2000, has a billion lines of Ada code in it. And then there is the cost of testing. The R-142's announcements don't work correctly because not enough time or care was spent debugging programs. That's where the cost is.
It would be interesting to see how much Kawasaki spent to write the software in the R-143.
But software development has gotten more expensive - because we still write code by hand. The USS Nautilus, cerca 1955, probably had a handful of lines of assembler or machine code. The USS Seawolf, cerca 2000, has a billion lines of Ada code in it.
Military programming is quite different than civilian programming. First off, they require at least two completely different sets of programs to perform each function and an arbiter for resolving differences. This alone more than doubles development costs. The second problem is that they use ADA, which reduces the supply of programmers.
The R-142's announcements don't work correctly because not enough time or care was spent debugging programs.
No, there is a systemic problem. The R-142 announcement rely on dead-reckoning to determine location. Dead reckoning systems need a method to periodically re-establish an accurate position in order to be effective. The bus system employed by LI Bus uses the GPS system and encounters no such problem so long as they remain in radio contact.
It would be interesting to see how much Kawasaki spent to write the software in the R-143.
Despite such expenses, the overall cost for equivalent requirements is cheaper when amortized over the quantity of the order. This may be a closer call with subway car orders because of the small number of cars. They will never be able to shrink wrap it and sell it for $50.
"Military programming is quite different than civilian programming. First off, they require at least two completely different sets of programs to perform each function and an arbiter for resolving differences. This alone more than doubles development costs. The second problem is that they use ADA, which reduces the supply of programmers."
That is true, but the cost of civilian programming has gone up as well, even when you amortize. Software is a much larger proportion of new systems - it's more capable, and gives you greater functions, but it'smore expensive - there's no getting around it.
"No, there is a systemic problem. The R-142 announcement rely on dead-reckoning to determine location. Dead reckoning systems need a method to periodically re-establish an accurate position in order to be effective. The bus system employed by LI Bus uses the GPS system and encounters no such problem so long as they remain in radio contact."
Again, a software debugging problem. You're comparing an apple to a banana. The subway runs on fixed tracks, with fixed stations. You don't need GPS for that. If part of the "debugging" includes getting feedback directly from the train's axles, fine. So you rewrite some of the code and patch in a little hardware.
The subway runs on fixed tracks, with fixed stations. You don't need GPS for that. If part of the "debugging" includes getting feedback directly from the train's axles, fine.
The R-142's position calculator runs off the tachometer which is feedback directly from the train's axles. There are 2 error sources.
First, this system does not account for wheel slippage.
Second, the system does not account for tread wear. The R-142 wheels are 34" in diameter. A wear of only 100 mils represents an error of 0.3%. A train is expected to travel approximately 6500 miles (78,000 feet) per month. The expected deviation due to wear is 234 feet per month. Trains are inspected every 2 months, so if the positioning device is not re-zeroed the rev counter position indicator will miss a station.
CBTC systems rely on individual trains accurately knowing their position. They have "beacons" that automatically recalibrate the positioner at key locations along the route. This reduces the error to that accumulated between beacons. This can be held to around 0.01". The NYCT does not employ such correcting devices.
[. But software development has gotten more expensive - because we still write code by hand.]
1. Software developement is a fixed cost and doesn't change regardless of how many times you implement it, sort of you arguing against yourself here :-)
2. Software is less written "by hand" novadays then in the past. RAD, computer aided software development, etc. I'll bet that those billion lines of ADA code in your maritime example were mostly machine generated.
Arti
Aircraft cost is a good example. Airbus recognized the cost savings of "fly by wire" technology over hydraulic lines; Boeing did not. That is the principal reason why Airbus has been able to beat Boeing in price.
Is this also perhaps the reason that Airbus jets have a significantly higher crash rate (per takeoff/landing cycle, which is considered to be the real test of aircraft age) than Boeing? I don't know, just speculating...
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Airbus has had some computer problems where the computer would override the pilot trying to pull up when the computer thought they were on an attitude that would cause a stall. The computer always wins those arguments ...
I know it's not traditionally done, but is there any reason not to allow passengers to sit (and/or stand) in cabs that aren't in use? Presumably all the controls are disabled, so why not leave the door open?
In a word....Vandalism
But that's a problem everywhere on the train.
It costs more to replace a control panel than it does to replace a window or seat...doesn't it?
It costs more to replace a control panel than it does to replace a window or seat...doesn't it?
That depends on the control panel design. There are two philosophies for such design: make a cheap easily replaceable panel or build a fortress. The conductors' panels on the old BMT standards, which you may recall were in plain site in the middle of the car, definitely adhered to the latter philosophy.
I've designed equipment that had to be "bullet-proof" both front and back. It can be done and it's not excessively expensive.
PATH also has exposed control panels that would ascribe to the BMT line of thinking.
Peace,
ANDEE
So install locking panels to cover anything that might be stolen or vandalized. Locking the entire cab is a waste of space.
[Locking the entire cab is a waste of space.]
You know, I never really thought about this, but of course you're right. What surprises me is that the MTA apparently didn't either. What more obvious way to add a bit of space to a train?
Back in ye olde days of the SIRT (pre-1972 arrival of the R-44s), they used to do that, but AFAIK no transit system in the NY metro area has done it since then.
in the last two car orders C(1's) and C 2's BART has the left half of the transverse cab open as standee space when the car is in midtrain use.
CTA does the same thing on its trains. I've even seen C/O's open up the left-hand side of the front cab on Brown Line trains at Fullerton during morning rush hours, as all the remaining stops from there to the Loop have platforms on the right-hand side of the train.
-- David
Chicago, IL
>>>Presumably all the controls are disabled, so why not leave the door open? <<<
All the controls are not disabled, HVAC controls, PA system, lights, end door switches and other circuit breakers are all still active.
Peace,
ANDEE
I hate the full-width cab. It is a waste of money, has no practical purpose and sucks for railfans. (T/O's who put newspaper there so we can't look out, you know who you are.....)
"I hate the full-width cab. It is a waste of money, has no practical purpose and sucks for railfans."
To be fair to both sides of the issue, it offers the TO more room to do his/her job, offers better visibility of track and platform without pesky railfans getting in the way (hey, I'm a railfan), allows additional personnel (supervisor or trainee or whatever) to be in the cab too. The MTA probably has other reasons for liking it, which I am not familiar with.
I do like the railfan window. But I'll survive without it (sigh).
[To be fair to both sides of the issue, it offers the TO more room to do his/her job, offers better visibility of track and platform without pesky railfans getting in the way (hey, I'm a railfan), allows additional personnel (supervisor or trainee or whatever) to be in the cab too. The MTA probably has other reasons for liking it, which I am not familiar with.]
I thought they went to the full length cabs to permit OPTO during off-peak hours (then didn't use it).
[Ordering single cars with full cab controls significantly increases the cost of purchasing new subway fleets, and (esp. with full-width cabs) reduces seating capacity per car.]
The single cars would only need full cab controls if you put the extra car in the middle or at the end.
Going to 660' trains makes sense only if it can be done with no additional capital or labor costs - other than those associated with the car itself. This is not the case.
Not all lines can handle 660' trains - even in the late 1950's - only the original IND stations. This is why the D went to Coney Island, instead of the F, when the Culver became an IND line. This means that substantial station rebuilding will be necessary.
According to the 1957 arbitrator's ruling, 660' trains require two conductors. Couple the extra cars together and run them as separate trains. There's more than 10% more track capacity available on all lines.
[Going to 660' trains makes sense only if it can be done with no additional capital or labor costs - other than those associated with the car itself. This is not the case.
Not all lines can handle 660' trains - even in the late 1950's - only the original IND stations. This is why the D went to Coney Island, instead of the F, when the Culver became an IND line. This means that substantial station rebuilding will be necessary.
According to the 1957 arbitrator's ruling, 660' trains require two conductors. Couple the extra cars together and run them as separate trains. There's more than 10% more track capacity available on all lines.]
Certainly, one should use the lines to full capacity before going to the expense of adding additional cars.
Meanwhile, with the possible exception of the Jamaica extension, the stations that experience the worst crush are on the original portion of the IND -- so just close down the extra car when it has to run on the BMT or new stations.
As to the arbitrator's decision, I won't say what I think because it would probably down Subtalk again. Suffice it to say that times have changed.
Or they could extend the platforms to 720' much as the BMT Broadway platforms were stretched in the late sixties for 600' trains. Meanwhile a 675' train with one doorset locked off at each end should fit. Amazing the cheap incremental things not done.
[Or they could extend the platforms to 720' much as the BMT Broadway platforms were stretched in the late sixties for 600' trains. Meanwhile a 675' train with one doorset locked off at each end should fit. Amazing the cheap incremental things not done.]
Isn't it? It seems that if it doesn't cost $1 billion they won't consider it.
"Or they could extend the platforms to 720' much as the BMT Broadway platforms were stretched in the late sixties for 600' trains. Meanwhile a 675' train with one doorset locked off at each end should fit. Amazing the cheap incremental things not done."
That's not a bad solution..
Wait a minute. Cars have three or four doors on each side. Not all need to platform. An extra car could be added to the trains on any line by allowing one or two doors to dangle off each end of the platform.
[Wait a minute. Cars have three or four doors on each side. Not all need to platform. An extra car could be added to the trains on any line by allowing one or two doors to dangle off each end of the platform.]
That's what we've been saying!
The IRT originally ran that way, and you could run 11 car, 675' trains on the IND by doing the same. It's not ideal -- which is why the IRT ended the practice -- but it's a good stopgap if you want to run full length trains on the E and F.
[Even Gene Russianoff is kind to the MTA in his quote, and some of the solutions proposed are pretty common sense.]
Yes, but remember two things:
1. Russianoff, quite predictably, refuses to offer a way of doing any of those things (especially his fifth item) or paying for them.
2. Implementation by Transit will deprive Straphangers of things to complain about. Russianoff will then sue under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, claiming a conspiracy to put him out of business. (He almost stopped the five-year Capital Programs that way.)
[Russianoff, quite predictably, refuses to offer a way of doing any of those things (especially his fifth item) or paying for them.]
OK, how about
--Explaining why the MTA is throwing away cars rather than using them
--Explaining why the MTA can't achieve service levels routinely achieved in years past and on other transit systems, even though ridership is still significantly below historical levels
--Eliminating unnecessary token clerks
--Going to OPTO
--Eliminating inefficient work rules and bloated pensions
--Raising the fare
--Reducing the ridiculous commuter RR subsidies
--Diverting some money from the salaries of several hundred thousand social workers
--Diverting some money from the billion dollars a year New York State spends on training twice as many doctors as it needs
--Bringing government expenditures in the State and City into line with expenditures in other localities, particularly Medicaid expenditures
--Privatizing Health and Hospitals, public housing, and anything else that can be done more efficiently by non-profit agencies or private enterprise
--Restoring the commuter tax
--Letting Nassau County put its own house in order
--Explaining why it costs New York State 3 times as much as private enterprise to build a given structure
--Explaining why it costs over $1 billion/mile to build a subway here and only $250 million/mile in California
--Explaining why hundreds of thousands of people are forced to subsist on welfare when they could be fixing our decrepit schools or building new subways
--Explaining why out of a combined budget of $100 billion or so New York City and New York State can't come up with the money to fix the transit system
Etc. . . . (end rant)
--Explaining why the MTA is throwing away cars rather than using them
The MTA is buying more R-142s than they are throwing away Redbirds. Too many Redbirds are already falling apart to keep them.
--Explaining why the MTA can't achieve service levels routinely achieved in years past and on other transit systems, even though ridership is still significantly below historical levels
It isn't significantly below historical records. An all-time high for annual ridership has recently been reached.
--Eliminating unnecessary token clerks
--Going to OPTO
--Eliminating inefficient work rules and bloated pensions
--Raising the fare
God forbid people should pay as much as they're getting!
--Reducing the ridiculous commuter RR subsidies
Commuter RR subsidies have some merit. If a railroad ticket that now costs $7 costed $14, many people would just drive to Manhattan and pay to park there. If this is to change, then EVERYTHING (roads and parking) should be charged realistically through user fees.
Of course, the best solution would be to eliminate the road subsidies which have allowed the fungus that is suburbia to grow over the past fifty years. Whenever people have fled the cities, that has always coincided with the fall of civilization.
--Diverting some money from the billion dollars a year New York State spends on training twice as many doctors as it needs
Yet of all the healthcare spending in New York, we are near the bottom of expenditures for ooctors and nurses, the most important players in the game.
--Letting Nassau County put its own house in order
I say abolish Nasty County and return the area to its pre-1899 state.
--Explaining why it costs New York State 3 times as much as private enterprise to build a given structure
Why does this need to be explained? Doesn't everybody know about graft?
--Explaining why it costs over $1 billion/mile to build a subway here and only $250 million/mile in California
Not to mention that that subway was decried as costly!
--Explaining why hundreds of thousands of people are forced to subsist on welfare when they could be fixing our decrepit schools or building new subways
This is the Twenty-first century, people shouldn't have to work for a living in this day and age!
If this is to change, then EVERYTHING (roads and parking) should be charged realistically through user fees.
Bingo! (Subways, too.)
Of course, the best solution would be to eliminate the road subsidies which have allowed the fungus that is suburbia to grow over the past fifty years. Whenever people have fled the cities, that has always coincided with the fall of civilization.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one proposing this.
Bravo! I like your way of thinking.
[The MTA is buying more R-142s than they are throwing away Redbirds. Too many Redbirds are already falling apart to keep them.]
I understand the problem, but it seems to me they should keep them running until they have enough cars to end the shortage -- and even then, they should be mothballed rather than discarded, just in case.
[It isn't significantly below historical records. An all-time high for annual ridership has recently been reached.]
Are you sure? I was under the impression that ridership used to be a good deal higher.
[Commuter RR subsidies have some merit. If a railroad ticket that now costs $7 costed $14, many people would just drive to Manhattan and pay to park there. If this is to change, then EVERYTHING (roads and parking) should be charged realistically through user fees.]
Well, I'm for eliminating the subsidies and charging realistically.
But my main problem with the commuter RR subsidies is that they come at the expense of efficiency. It seems that LIRR employees work a lot less and get paid a lot more than people who do the same jobs at NYC Transit.
[Why does this need to be explained? Doesn't everybody know about graft?]
A lot of it I think is legal graft on the part of the State Legislature & other politicians, e.g., that amazing law that prohibits government from hiring a general contractor, or the legislature's refusal to consider tort reform.
From the times a few days ago:
"The opposition to Edison — made up of local Democrats, the teachers
union and community groups — was vigorous and highly organized.
Opponents believed they faced a corporate beachhead into the domain
they had shaped over decades. Publicly, they said schoolchildren
were being reduced to dollar signs, while privately they feared an
erosion of their power throughout the school system. The United Federation of Teachers, faced with reduced control over teacher placement at the schools, distributed anti-Edison leaflets at two schools and encouraged pupils at others to ask their parents to oppose the plan. City and state politicians saw privatization as eroding their influence over community school boards and the hiring of aides and administrators, who sometimes form part of their campaign teams."
Kinda makes me feel like Don Quixote at times . . . am I the only one who finds this sort of stuff repugnant beyond belief?
I understand the problem, but it seems to me they should keep them running until they have enough cars to end the shortage -- and even then, they should be mothballed rather than discarded, just in case.
Again, that's the solution, but many Redbirds cannot continue. The mistake the MTA made was scrapping the R-15s and R-30s without replacement.
The MTA could still add trains even if the R-26/28/29s go to the scrapper. It's just a question of how many R-33/36 cars they opt to keep after all of the R-142s arrive.
Well, I'm for eliminating the subsidies and charging realistically.
But my main problem with the commuter RR subsidies is that they come at the expense of efficiency. It seems that LIRR employees work a lot less and get paid a lot more than people who do the same jobs at NYC Transit.
And even so, their jobs are the ost inefficient. Not only do they have to have a minimum of 3PTO, but their are the ticket collectors. Even securing all of the stations for fare control would be cheaper over the long run. But the best solution? The POP system.
Kinda makes me feel like Don Quixote at times . . . am I the only one who finds this sort of stuff repugnant beyond belief?
No, you aren't.
Personally I think all schools should be privatized, and not as charter schools, as 100% private schools.
[And even so, their jobs are the ost inefficient. Not only do they have to have a minimum of 3PTO, but their are the ticket collectors. Even securing all of the stations for fare control would be cheaper over the long run. But the best solution? The POP system.]
I think you're right.
[Personally I think all schools should be privatized, and not as charter schools, as 100% private schools.]
That's a good idea.
Sad that we have to consider it, though. 50 years go the public schools were top notch, because they were dedicated to educating children rather than placating interest groups. If we get any greedier we'll end up cannibals!
One of many horror stories: after they introduced the local school boards, a friend who was an assistant principal despaired of ever being promoted to principal because he was Jewish. Then, to his surprise, he was promoted. When he asked the board why he'd been chosen, they said "because your Irish, and we didn't want another Jew."
Of course, the best solution would be to eliminate the road subsidies which have allowed the fungus that is suburbia to grow over the past fifty years. Whenever people have fled the cities, that has always coincided with the fall of civilization.
The only reason people flee to the suburbs because cities are cancers that need to be eliminated (NUKED). Suburb flight is a symptom of over population and THAT is the cause of the fall of civilization.
>>>The only reason people flee to the suburbs because cities are cancers that need to be eliminated (NUKED). <<<
Suburbs would whither and die without the cities that form their nucleus. No one would have anywhere to work.
Peace,
ANDEE
Suburban industrial parks. In 50 years the only reason ppl. will go to a city is to go clubbing.
"Suburban industrial parks. In 50 years the only reason ppl. will go to a city is to go clubbing."
You're kidding me, right? Here in Chicago, the office vacancy rate for downtown is around half that of the suburban office parks. All sorts of new office buildings (10-20 stories, not whopping skyscrapers, but office buildings all the same) are going up between the Chicago River and the expressways, in the West Loop near the train stations. This is an area that has been parking lots (lots, mind, not multilevel garages) since they cleared out skid row back in the 1970s (IIRC), and until about 10 years ago was considered hopeless for anything BUT parking lots. And this construction is going on even though one of the largest office spaces in the world, the old Post Office covering four blocks, could potentially come onto the market at any time.
And no doubt Jersey Mike would be happy to push the big red button and laugh with joy at the mushroom cloud.
Pieces of bodies and fragments of Redbirds going everywhere...
You don't need a big red button to get pieces of Redbird to fly everywhere.
The only reason people flee to the suburbs because cities are cancers that need to be eliminated (NUKED).
Cities have been the cradles of civilization since its DAWN. When there were no cities, people fought off wooly mammoths with sticks and lived in caves.
Suburbia is filled with people just as dumb. Look at all of the people who are so braindead they can't even program something as simple as a VCR?
Suburb flight is a symptom of over population and THAT is the cause of the fall of civilization.
Overpopulation has never caused the fall of civilization. Civilization has fallen because of despotic rulers who care more about themselves and their wealth than the people which they rule. Eventually, their regime becomes ineffectual at protecting its citizenry from invasion, and quelling rebellion. People flee from the cities to be free from the marauding tribes who organize to rape and pillage to make a living. Meanwhile, those who are more scrupulous or who are to weak to rape and pillage move to the countryside to till the soil and grow their own food. In addition, with people caring more about their survival, since it's no longer something to be taken for granted, they end up shunning "recreational" activities, and that means learning to read. An illiterate society can easily be manipulated by any of several generations of rulers, civil or religious.
Personally, I don't wish to live in such a society. People who move to the suburbs are already braindead and can be easily manipulated by contemporary demogogues anyway.
>>>Suburbia is filled with people just as dumb. Look at all of the people who are so braindead they can't even program something as simple as a VCR? <<<
Pigs, while I agree with you on the suburbs, this is a bad example, there are plenty of people in the city that can't program VCRs either.
Peace,
ANDEE
--Going to OPTO
I agree with most of your points, but OPTO is slow, slow, slow, unless the doors open on the right side of the train at all stops on the line, and I don't think NYC has such a line. (I'm less convinced about the safety concerns.)
Cameras would solve that problem.
Along with controls for both sets of doors in all cabs. (And once we have that, full-width cabs suddenly serve no purpose and can be abolished. Yippee.)
Bad idea that ... safety issue again. You need to have the door operators (whomever they may be) on the same side with the doors to make sure they're all closed and no bodies being dragged down the platform for a "wall event" ... it was rare for people to be dragged back in the days when you actually climbed out between cars to open and close up ... easier to walk away inside a cab. But operating doors from the other side of the car from the open doors is a plain dangerous idea.
As Pork said: cameras.
As long as whoever's operating the doors has a clear view of them, it doesn't matter if he's sitting on the same side, on the opposite side, or on the moon.
If that's still not enough, install electric eyes along the platform edge. If they detect an obstruction after the doors are closed, the camera zooms in and the train doesn't move until the TO/CR checks out the situation.
[I agree with most of your points, but OPTO is slow, slow, slow, unless the doors open on the right side of the train at all stops on the line, and I don't think NYC has such a line. (I'm less convinced about the safety concerns.)]
I thought it added only a few seconds to each stop? The time for the motorman to slide to/from his console? In return, you get more frequent service and other benefits . . . also, on most lines, the TO would only have to slide over at the express stations.
Cameras, which are already used on some lines, and safety sensors in the doors would I think address the safety issues.
Also, I saw a picture of the completely automated French line a while back and it appears that they had cameras aimed at every door. I guess they monitor the doors remotely. That would make a lot of sense, because a single conductor could control multiple trains.
Cameras would solve the problem.
I've ridden Chicago's OPTO lines. The slowdown is quite noticeable. At the very least the CTA should modify the cars to allow the doors to be opened (but not closed) from either side.
[Cameras would solve the problem.]
I think they'd be necessary anyway. And since the TO would be watching them rather than the platform, what reason is there for him to slide over? They could get rid of the transverse cabs.
Looking at the track maps, there are a number of places, even in midtown, where there are unused layup tracks. Why can't the MTA station empty "relief" trains there, with a crew on board? These could be put into service during rush hours to fill gaps that inevitably occur because of overcrowdigng, sick passenger, etc. So when a platform gets full to bursting, an empty or almost empty train could pull in and relieve the problem.
I think due to Lex conditions, they SHOUL have a train at 59th Street layup tracks.
Arti
That's exactly the sort of solution I'm talking about.
I think due to Lex conditions, they SHOUL have a train at 59th Street layup tracks.
Adding just 3 trains and turning them at 59th would increase rush hour service levels from 24 to 30 tph. An objection was raised that using this layup track would: 1-require 4 minutes to clear the train because passengers could not be on an empty train on the layup track even if it were returning to service within a minute; 2-require at least two platform conductors to perform this chore; 3-require half a dozen supervisors and dispatchers to staff this terminal.
It's not just management that's against small incremental improvements - there is also labor. :-)
Is it simpler if there are platforms at the layover point? 59th is up in the tunnel; what if there is a center track with platform to either side? I'm thinking of issues related to stopping some 4s short at 149th/Grand Concourse. (Can't say when express 4s last regularly used that center track.)
Is it simpler if there are platforms at the layover point?
Yes, at least there is no need to empty the train. There will still be some staffing requirement for terminal facilities. That's a labor problem.
59th is up in the tunnel
To use it effectively, you have to add switches at 68th St. Then you could technically reverse direction at 68th and not have to empty the train. I figure that's about $2 million to shaft the union on this point.
I'm thinking of issues related to stopping some 4s short at 149th/Grand Concourse. (Can't say when express 4s last regularly
used that center track.)
They do use the center platform for the 4's at 149th St. The 4 does not stop at 138th. They also add 2 short trains during the morning rush at 149th. They deadhead until 125th. They are not on the printed schedule. They also run a couple of short trains to 3rd Ave on the #6.
They can considerably expand both short lines to bring service levels up at minimal cost. The 4,5 and 6 are only 60% full, when they leave the Bronx. The overcrowding occurs in Manhattan.
So short trains are one approach to the capacity problem. Been done, can be done again.
That leads me to one I've really been fuming about. There are two other types of MTA trains that can help relieve the crush: MNR and LIRR.
The cheapest rush hour trip on MNR within the City is 125th to GCT for $4.25. Ridiculous. Rush hour trips from the other 12 City stations to GCT are $4.75. Average trip length is a dozen miles or so.
But take a rush hour train a dozen miles from Syosset to Nassau business hub Mineola, for example, and the fare is ... just $1.75.
The cheapest rush hour trip on LIRR in the City is Kew Gardens, Forest Hills or Woodside to NYP, and East NY or Nostrand to Flatbush for $4.75. The last one is just 1.6 miles! Ridiculous. Rush hour trips from the other 14 LIRR City stations to NYP/Flatbush are $5.50. Average trip length is about 10 miles.
But take a rush hour train from Chappaqua to Westchester business hub White Plains (10 miles), for example, and the fare is ... just $1.75.
Simple solution: drop all these MTA commuter train fares within the City to $1.50 (or whatever on the Metrocard), just like the fare within the City on MTA subway trains. Should it matter what divisional banner the MTA train flies under? Install machines that dispense commuter tickets for a Metrocard fare. Unlimited ride Metrocards could only be used every 4 hours or so.
Imagine how much less demand there would be on the IRT and the Queens lines. People close to these 32 stations (time to reopen Woodhaven?) would flock to the alternatives that would get them to the City so much faster. Some of these riders would return to the subways at NYP and GCT (and Flatbush), but I'd have to believe the overall impact would be reduced. More reason to run short trains and otherwise maximize capacity on the southern Manhattan IRTs.
Sure, people will stand on MTA's MNR and LIRR trains. They do now on MTA's NYCT trains. Welcome to the club. And inbound, it will be the City riders who will do the standing. Outbound, late boarding suburbanites will have to stand. At least until trains leave the City, which is relatively quickly.
I understand that there is a premimum fare charged for a premium service. And that 10 miles in the middle of the trip, where seats are more plentiful, is different than the last 10 miles. But not using this resource seems like fiddling while we burn. Paris has the same flat fare deal with their RER commuter trains within city limits, and they do fine. I am sure suburbanites here will likewise survive the indignity of riding with us city folk. There is a massive transit subsidy going on from City to Suburb, and if there is a time to address it, it is now.
It appears that the problem here is politics, not technical constraints. Well, the City is growing faster than the other areas, and we've been told to apply the screws in an election year (this year for Mayor, next year for Guv). I know Green has touched upon this in the past. Time to fix it.
The fares are designed DELIBERATELY to discourage commuter rail use within the city, and for a good reason actually. When I was late for work and lived on the #1 line, I'd PAY the premium to take the "real" train from Marble Hill to NYC since the trip took about 18 minutes compared to an hour on the IRT.
The problem is the commuter lines don't have enough cars and gaps to be able to "compete" with the subway and a low fare would cause just that. It's a matter of social policy (whoop, politics again) engineering a solution to keep the great unwashed off the lily-white suburban subways ... sorry, but that's what it is. The commuter lines would never be able to handle the increased traffic, political sensibilities aside ... but that's why the fares are artificially high.
[The problem is the commuter lines don't have enough cars and gaps to be able to "compete" with the subway and a low fare would cause just that. It's a matter of social policy (whoop, politics again) engineering a solution to keep the great unwashed off the lily-white suburban subways ... sorry, but that's what it is. The commuter lines would never be able to handle the increased traffic, political sensibilities aside ... but that's why the fares are artificially high.]
Is it that, or just the usual give-more-to-the-suburbs-than-the-City business?
Anyway, it seems to me those lily-white suburban sensibilities could be protected by charging a reasonable premium, say $3.00 rather than $1.50. After all, it does cost more to provide a cushy seat on an FRA railroad than a sardine slot on the subway. And I think there's some real necessity to this sort of social engineering: middle class people expect a certain degree of comfort, and they're a crucial part of the City's economic picture. Conversely, the last thing the working poor need is a more expensive subway ride. So offer both options, and let people choose the one that suits them.
I don't accept these arguments. The purpose of MTA is to move people, not seperate them into castes.
There is no need to charge more in the City because City riders are unlikely to get a seat. Commuter rail costs more because you go farther, but in the City section, you are going no further than you would in an NYCT train. "Protecting" the commuters doesn't make sense because many of them transfer and become NYCT passengers once they arrive in the City. And there is a downside to using these trains: at most stations, if you miss your train, there isn't another one coming in a few minutes. Many will switch over, but not all.
For a 50 mile trip, commuter riders can live with people standing in the aisles for the last 10. They do it in Paris quite nicely. If MNR and LIRR trains were all packed, that would be one thing. But they are not. Even if they were: order more cars. The suburban systems are already massively subsidized against City users. It is an issue of equity as much as anything.
[I don't accept these arguments. The purpose of MTA is to move people, not seperate them into castes.]
People are already separated into castes! I think the purpose of the MTA is to give them the transit services they want and need, and for someone struggling to raise a family on $20,000 a year that's very different from someone who drives a Lexus. This is really just a different type of service, akin to an express bus (which is where I got the $3 figure).
[There is no need to charge more in the City because City riders are unlikely to get a seat. Commuter rail costs more because you go farther, but in the City section, you are going no further than you would in an NYCT train. "Protecting" the commuters doesn't make sense because many of them transfer and become NYCT passengers once they arrive in the City. And there is a downside to using these trains: at most stations, if you miss your train, there isn't another one coming in a few minutes. Many will switch over, but not all.]
But it still costs much more to operate a commuter train over the same distance. There's more area per passenger, there are higher staffing requirements, and there's the FRA. And the system and staff don't get the same off-peak utilization the subways do.
[For a 50 mile trip, commuter riders can live with people standing in the aisles for the last 10. They do it in Paris quite nicely. If MNR and LIRR trains were all packed, that would be one thing. But they are not. Even if they were: order more cars. The suburban systems are already massively subsidized against City users. It is an issue of equity as much as anything.]
I certainly agree with you on the equity issue. But I'm thinking about this from the opposite angle -- there's no equity in charging more to City residents for a given trip than suburban residents, and a $3 fare (or something similar) would redress that discrepancy.
But I wouldn't make commuters stand. That standard of transporation may have been acceptable 100 years ago when people were poorer and had lower expectations, but today it's not. The City has to compete with other regions for middle class residents and businesses, and lure people out of their cars to prevent gridlock. The comfort of mass transit has to be compared to the comfort of a car, and in that respect the subway falls *way* short. And I think it's crucial for the City to do anything it can to retain its small middle class population. Decent commuter and subway service to middle class neighborhoods is one way to do that; lower taxes, decent schools, and the elimination of rent control are probably even more important.
>>>...and the elimination of rent control are probably even more important. <<<
Rent CONTROL was eliminated, for new tenants, many years ago.
Peace,
ANDEE
[Rent CONTROL was eliminated, for new tenants, many years ago.]
Only if you want to quibble -- rent stablization was rapidly imposed to do the same thing.
Vacancy decontrol, to which you refer, was far worse than rent control, because it froze the City's housing stock into increasingly inefficient configurations. It did more than any other program to fuel the rise in housing costs.
[But it still costs much more to operate a commuter train over the same distance. There's more area per passenger, there are higher staffing requirements, and there's the FRA. And the system and staff don't get the same off-peak utilization the subways do.]
Then why do they charge just $1.75 for the same distance trip in Westchester or Nassau? There is a double standard.
[I certainly agree with you on the equity issue. But I'm thinking about this from the opposite angle -- there's no equity in charging more to City residents for a given trip than suburban residents, and a $3 fare (or something similar) would redress that discrepancy.]
Again, why just $1.75 for a 10 or 12 mile trip in the suburbs? Express buses are great where there isn't a one-seat rail option (SI - Manhattan, for example). But there are trains going through the Bronx and Queens on the way to where people are going. Let them aboard.
[But I wouldn't make commuters stand.]
Give City residents that option, they'll take it. At least they will stand for a shorter period of time. Add trips and trains -- to all three railroads -- longer-term to meet a no-stand standard? Absolutely. No complaint.
[And I think it's crucial for the City to do anything it can to retain its small middle class population. Decent commuter and subway service to middle class neighborhoods is one way to do that]
This would be a break for the middle class in northern Bronx and Eastern Queens. Like the existing system provides a break to the middle class outside the City's boundaries. The current system says live in Manhattan, or just go straight to the suburban counties. My proposal would say the outer burroughs are also an important priority.
[Then why do they charge just $1.75 for the same distance trip in Westchester or Nassau? There is a double standard.]
Same distance as what?
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly that it's inexcusable to charge more to City residents than suburbanites.
[But there are trains going through the Bronx and Queens on the way to where people are going. Let them aboard.]
It seems to me this might be the gist of an equal protection lawsuit. Of course, the state would find a way to screw the City anyway, the way they did with the school funding decision.
[Give City residents that option, they'll take it. At least they will stand for a shorter period of time. Add trips and trains -- to all three railroads -- longer-term to meet a no-stand standard? Absolutely. No complaint.]
I'm way in favor of offering local service on the commuter lines. The value of that infrastructure is incalculable. I'd offer both subway-style and commuter-style service as appropriate.
[This would be a break for the middle class in northern Bronx and Eastern Queens. Like the existing system provides a break to the middle class outside the City's boundaries. The current system says live in Manhattan, or just go straight to the suburban counties. My proposal would say the outer burroughs are also an important priority.]
I'd also institute service in Manhattan. With the Riverdale, Central, and Hell's Gate lines, the West Side Line, the Rockaway and Queens Freight line, the Atlantic Avenue and Montauk lines, the Park Avenue lines, and the 32nd/33rd Street tunnels, we could revolutionize service and coverage for commuters, City residents, and air travellers at a fairly low cost.
[Same distance as what?]
As an equal length trip in the City. Earlier in the thread, I detailed how a 10 or 12 mile trip within the suburbs cost $1.75, while a 10 or 12 mile trip within the city costs (mostly) $4.75 or $5.50.
[I'd also institute service in Manhattan. With the Riverdale, Central, and Hell's Gate lines, the West Side Line, the Rockaway and Queens Freight line, the Atlantic Avenue and Montauk lines, the Park Avenue lines, and the 32nd/33rd Street tunnels, we could revolutionize service and coverage for commuters, City residents, and air travellers at a fairly low cost.]
Amen. But we'll need to be vigilant. For example: I haven't looked closely at the Penn Station Access study lately. But as I recall, the flavor is no stops on the Hudson line coming down the Empire side, and maybe just a Co-op stop coming down the Hell Gate side.
[Amen. But we'll need to be vigilant. For example: I haven't looked closely at the Penn Station Access study lately. But as I recall, the flavor is no stops on the Hudson line coming down the Empire side, and maybe just a Co-op stop coming down the Hell Gate side.]
(Sigh) Typical.
Doesn't bother me any ... a trip to the city from where I live is a $75.00 proposition. Needless to say, ain't been down there since somewhere around 1988 ... so for what it's worth, the fare structure also keeps us farm kids off the trains too. :)
Can someone please explain to me why it isn’t possible to reverse a train on a layup track with a passeenger on board?
I can understand a lot of due diligence if the train is going to spend a significant amount of time out of service, but if it’s just a case of the time needed for the TO to walk from one end to the other, I can’t see this as anything but a piece of stupidity.
Now someone tell me why I’m being the stupid one!
John.
It's a safety issue really. And back when I worked there, on a relay, you'd pick up a switchman on the ass end of the train - you'd take it onto the relay tail and dump it at the 10 car marker. The guy at the other end would then charge up (takes a bit of time) and back you went. At the end of the relay, you'd step off and another guy would take it out while you hit the office. Only way off peak would you actually walk the train since there was time for that. On a single track relay though, you want to get that train in and back out to make room for the next relay through. At 205th, you had more time since there were two tail tracks and therefore the other guy went before you had to.
But back when I worked there, there were a number of trains that didn't run the whole line that would get relayed somewhere so as to provide a higher level of service to the mainline in Manhattan while only 1 of 2 or 2 of 3 would run the entire line in rush hour. So there were a lot of trains where they were needed and enough trains to the far ends of the line ... worked mighty well actually.
Thank you for the insight on how turnaround is accomplished so that the train is put in service as fast as possible.
Um, I still don’t understand: “It’s a safety issue” Why is a passenger waiting in a tail track (ie in a track in a tunnel) any different from a passenger waiting in a tunnel because the train in front isn’t moving?–“Takes a bit of time”? I have been sitting in a tunnel for 15-20 minutes (actually that was standing in a tunnel for 20 minutes). How do these circumstances differ?
As I said, if the train is going to be idle for a while, then you need to get the passengers off. Otherwise, if they’re dumb enough not to realize that they have reached the terminus, they can go back to where they started and have another opportunity to think about their mistake!
John.
I don't know the particular logic of it being a safety issue, but part of the procedure prior to doing a relay is that the train is walked and everybody cast off the train because it's a safety issue as far as management is concerned. It's just what you do. When you're a bottom feeder and management tells you, "this is how it's done, there is no other way to do it" you learn not to argue and just do as you're told. As an employee though, if you transport geese onto a relay, you get written up or possibly worse. But as to what the specific safety issues are, dunno.
Exactly! No real safety issues identified, it’s just the way we do it!
Unfortunately, management challenges (ie force them to think) don’t seem to do well in the MTA.
You're right ... and I'm just another line item that tried and failed to do much about it either. Not that TWU was in a mood to make any changes either. One of the things about the railroad was that just getting through the day was more than enough at times and boat rockers would find themselves really wishing they'd kept their piehole shut. :)
One thing you learn over time is to choose your battles wisely and hauling geese onto non-revenue track was one that wasn't worth the fight. Ya dump the train, ya dump the geese, ya close up and move on. If nobody dies, it's a good day.
A follow-up article in today's Daily News City Beat repeats a an MTA excuse for poor service as a fact. The quoted excuse is: "the TA can run a maximum 27 to 30 trains per hour on nine lines: the B, D, Q, E, F, 2, 3, 4 and 5."
The capacity due to the constraints of tracks, signals, dwell time, acceleration and braking rates is slighlty in excess of 40 trains per hour. The private companies operated these same lines at 40 tph and above. There are systems in the world that have similar charatcteristics that operate at 40+ tph. These systems utilize similar equipment and signals as those currently used in NYC.
Any talk of running 25, 30, 35 or 40 tph on any line is academic. The TA simply does not have enough cars available to operate more rush hour trains. The major reasons for this shortage are TA managerial decisions. The most spectacular decisions being reducing max speed to compensate for inadequate brakes and the use of link bars to make the maintenance statistics look good. The former increased the requirement for opeating cars by 10%. The latter reduced both car availability and operating flexibility. They also decided to scrap hundreds of operating cars rather than retrofit them with air conditioning.
Many of the TA's excuses for poor performance are an act of God - Manhattan Bridge or betray any understanding of what is required to operate at or near capacity - "The 4 and 5 trains heading into Grand Central have to slow down to 15 miles an hour because of a curve just before the station".
These excuses simply don't stand up to simple historical examination, even if their reporters could not understand the simple engineering principles involved for calculating and operating at capacity that contradict this assertion.
The Manhattan Bridge effectively had only 2 tracks prior to 1967. But they ran more trains on the T, QT, and Q in 1964 than they currently do today on the B, D and Q. All the TA had to do was re-establish the 1964 opeations to compensate for the current Manhattan Bridge mess.
All trains have had to slow down to 15 mph for the Grand Central curve since 1918. They did run more locals and expresses on the Lex than at present.
I suppose these articles are designed to assuage their readers' concerns without unduly alarming them into increasing real estate taxes. :-)
[The capacity due to the constraints of tracks, signals, dwell time, acceleration and braking rates is slighlty in excess of 40 trains per hour.]
Yes, but how to get that message out? It seems that the reporters only talk to people who spout the company line. Perhaps a call to the News reporter who wrote the articles could elicit a more critical followup.
Didn't they publish Stephen's letter in last week News?
Arti
Didn't they publish Stephen's letter in last week News?
I never submitted one, so I doubt it.
[I never submitted one, so I doubt it. ]
Maybe some other Stephen, but the ideas were quite similar to yours, pointing out that the system was able to run much more TPH.
Arti
I have read the April 1, 2001 Daily News story about various suggestions being made to improve subway service, and I have the following comments:
1. Increasing the size of the fleet is a fairly easy (though costly) way of increasing capacity, and, as the Daily News noted, it is being done. However, it is not the panacea some people would have us believe. For one thing, it creates some problems of its own, such as straining yard and shop capacity – this wasn’t an issue when the fleet was larger, in the 1970s for example, because cars were being stored on the mainline (and being vandalized) and they weren’t being maintained properly. In fact, more cars than necessary were being kept on the active roster in the 1970s and early 1980s in order to ensure that enough working cars could be scraped together to provide service – remember the R-46 truck fiasco? For another, even where track capacity is available, it would not necessarily be a wise thing to operate more service and/or longer trains, simply because while riding has gone up precipitously overall since 1996, it has not all gone up in one place or at one time of the day. Some of the places additional trains COULD be operated if the cars were available, simply don’t need more rush hour service than they’ve got.
But there is something the Daily News series didn’t get into, something that has been talked about on this board. A combination of modifications to the fleet’s propulsion systems, the signal system, and training practices has slowed the subway down. One must wonder whether restoring field shunting and finding a way to instill a healthy respect for the equipment in new Train Operators without scaring them into running through restricted zones at half the posted speed wouldn’t cut enough running time generate a trainset or two that could be used to increase capacity.
2. The problems with the new cars are teething pains, and, with proper oversight by MTA and NYCT, will be ironed out. When the R-62 and R-62A cars were coming in, delivery was stopped several times while fleet defects were corrected. In fact, NYCT came very close to canceling the R-62A contract due to problems Bombardier and Westinghouse were having correcting difficulties with the J/BDC contactor, part of the master controller. The problems were corrected, at least to a point where they didn’t threaten the viability of the R-62A fleet, and the cars became some of the most reliable ever operated in New York City (it should be noted that the master controllers on the R-62A fleet were replaced several years later with Adtranz (formerly Westinghouse) E-Cam controllers that don’t have J/BDC contactors).
3. Opening the field for new subway car purchases to other manufacturers than Bombardier and Kawasaki is not a bad idea. Remember, however, that the manufacturers are responsible mainly for building the carbodies. Subcontractors, for the most part, supply the componentry. As long as a manufacturer is capable of building the carbodies to NYCT’s satisfaction and can deal with the appropriate subcontractors, there shouldn’t be a problem (as an alternative, one of the subcontractors could bid on the cars and subcontract the bodies – the M-1, built by Budd under subcontract to General Electric, is an example).
4. Adding more service during off-peak hours is possible throughout the system because track capacity is available. Ridership counts are done on a regular basis, and service is added during off-peak hours where needed whenever possible. However, the subway fleet needs to be inspected every once in a while, and overhauled every once in a while. While some cars are available during off-peak times, there just aren’t thousands of subway cars sitting around doing nothing between the rush hours. This goes back to 1., above.
5. Getting better cooperation from riders is very important. Dwell time is a reason that more service couldn’t be operated on some lines even if subway cars were available. It’s a chicken-and-egg thing – dwell times skyrocketed in the late 1970s/early 1980s when service was unreliable and people assumed that the train in front of them would be the last one for a while. However, dwell time has long been a problem. I know that some people on this board claim that 40 trains per hour could be operated throughout the system (with the existing signals) if cars were available, but the simple fact is that they couldn’t. As many as 40 trains per hour were scheduled on some parts of the system many years ago, but through-put (the number of trains actually passing a given location in a given time frame) never was that high. Moreover, when 40 trains (or more) per hour were scheduled on, say, the Lexington Avenue Line, it was before the Contract One IRT local tracks were signaled in the 1930s (When the first subway opened, only the express tracks – including the center track between 96th Street and 145th Street – had signals. The elevated sections – which didn’t see as much service as the trunk through the central business district since they were branches – had semaphore-type signals). 60 trains per hour (using five-car trains) were contemplated on the local tracks, and 30 trains per hour (using eight-car trains) were contemplated on the express tracks. It should also be remembered that when through-put was above 30 trains per hour, many years ago, the subway was a much more personnel-centered operation than it is today. There were several people on each platform (at least the more crowded ones) to control boardings and alightings, and there were several conductors on each train (before multiple-unit door control, at least) to encourage people to get on or off. With personnel being the greatest component of NYCT’s operating costs, it’s unlikely that many more people will be hired to do crowd control.
6. Getting better cooperation from the NYPD is a pie-in-the-sky idea. First off, it hasn’t been proven that the way NYPD handles emergencies in the subway is a factor in delays being longer than they should be, and even if such a thing were proven, it would remain to be seen whether emergency response could be improved. Besides, since emergencies don’t happen in the same place every day, at the same time every day, there is no way NYCT could schedule around emergencies, and therefore emergency response is not a factor in scheduling of train service (except to say that in cases such as sick passengers, which seem to happen somewhere in a given corridor during the busiest times of the day, stationing nurses and/or emergency medical technicians at strategic locations does seem to have increased through-put, which will allow for additional service to be provided once cars are available).
Now, excuse me while I go back to lurking until people here stop launching threads about the “worst movie of all time” :-)
David
Nice to have your constructive and insightful remarks back, David; don't be a stranger.
We have similar "teething pains" here in Boston with the Type-8 Breda trolleys; the first cars arrived on-site over THREE YEARS AGO, and none are in service. Only 15 of 100 have been delivered; the deliveries and payments stopped until a solution for the derailments
is found (and finger pointing stops). So youz guyz in Noo Yawk aren't doing too badly with the R-142/As in comparison!
Getting more trains is as easy as speeding up the system. With higher speeds more trains could fit in.
But the MTA, typical of this "fear a lawsuit, overreaction age" we are in puts in more timers, more of those dreaded WD's, and limits the train's full speed potential (except for Hippos, they were slow from day #1)
Minimum headways are not influenced by travel time between stations. In fact it is marginally easier to run 40 tph at 10 mph than at 50 mph due to reduced braking distances.
Reduced operating speeds do increase the number of trains that are necessary to maintain service at a given level.
[Reduced operating speeds do increase the number of trains that are necessary to maintain service at a given level.]
And that could well be contributing to the current car shortage. Many trains seem to run at about half speed now during off-peak hours, and they crawl during peak periods.
I can't help but thinking on the basis of what you and others have said that the real problem here is just about *everything* has slipped from the days of efficient operation: # and availability of cars, dwell times/door holding, key bys, operating procedures during police and medical emergencies, train speeds, brake distances, # of doors and train length, poor schedulng (although the dispatcher at 242nd Street told me back in 1967 that rush hour came, they forgot about the schedule and just pushed out as many trains as they could). The system has a limited margin to absorb some operational deficiencies, and when you take out the margin you end up with a non-linear slowdown.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the TA's priorities have changed, from moving trains to avoiding lawsuits, placating the Feds, pacifying interest groups, and trimming the budget in the wrong places because they aren't free to trim where they should -- inefficient staffing and work rules, bloated bids, overdesigned projects like LIRR GCT access, not to mention huge investments like the 63rd Street tunnels that sit unused for years because of the vagaries of politics, ultimately costing more in wasted interest than they cost to build.
(although the dispatcher at 242nd Street told me back in 1967 that rush hour came, they forgot about the schedule and just pushed out as many trains as they could).
That is not the way to operate a railroad at peak capacity.
Nail, head ... as much as folks here will recoil at the injection of politics, the reason why the subway sucks is that it's ALL ABOUT POLITICS ... private industry is there to make customers as happy as possible so they come back and spend more and will invest if it looks like the profits will come out ahead for doing so.
POLITICAL entities however run on antigravity and the transit authority, BEING a political entity, responds not to reality but reality as curved about the antigravitational fields of the politicians that yank the chains ... I apologize for constantly bringing politics into the discussion and I'll stop here, but everyone does need to realize that politics is the ruler of all in this mess, not what the "customer" requires ... and politics is also the solution to it if properly jiggled like that annoying toilet bowl that runs all night. :)
[I apologize for constantly bringing politics into the discussion and I'll stop here, but everyone does need to realize that politics is the ruler of all in this mess, not what the "customer" requires ... and politics is also the solution to it if properly jiggled like that annoying toilet bowl that runs all night. :)]
I think you're right . . . though I'm not sure if the toilet can be sufficiently jiggled in this case, which is why I've come to believe that reprivatization is the best solution.
Even the most recalcitrant porcelain (or porcine) gives when confronted with a 50 pound sledge ... make the subway a re-election issue and it's amazing the lip service (and taxpayer cash) it will find itself awash in ... much like our situation up here in Albany over initiation of a commuter rail service ... the sausage crafters got very silly until they had their act dragged into the newspapers here. And now that it's an election issue, suddenly the mountain is wandering about the desert seeking Mohammed. Antigravity rules if a lever is applied in the right places. :)
[Even the most recalcitrant porcelain (or porcine) gives when confronted with a 50 pound sledge ... make the subway a re-election issue and it's amazing the lip service (and taxpayer cash) it will find itself awash in ... much like our situation up here in Albany over initiation of a commuter rail service ... the sausage crafters got very silly until they had their act dragged into the newspapers here. And now that it's an election issue, suddenly the mountain is wandering about the desert seeking Mohammed. Antigravity rules if a lever is applied in the right places. :)]
There seems to be a disconnect though. Pataki introduced the flat rates before the last election, apparently in the hopes that people would forget that he had cut support a couple years previously. Then when people in the City didn't vote for him, it seems he decided that nothing he did would matter. The Mayor, meanwhile, can only jawbone.
I hope we'll see more pressure like this Daily News series, or the near-revolts over the LIRR and the Second Avenue Subway.
"I hope we'll see more pressure like this Daily News series, or the near-revolts over the LIRR and the Second Avenue Subway."
The revolts you'll see are the ones that happen if MTA doesn't start building them, esp. 2nd Av. Politicians' heads may well roll over that.
In this respect, the boy is going to run again. And his numbers this time are SHORT ... he ain't going to make it for a third term unless suddenly there's a lovefest. He AIN'T gonna get the vote up here now that upstate was left as such a smoking crater, the FARMERS are moving out. So from a poli-sci viewpoint, he's gotta do MAJOR buttsmooch in the city or he's toast. Call it "power to be used and not abused" ... ball is now in NYC's court therefore - it's Paturkey's only chance.
That said, remember also that there are assembly"persons" and senators to beat up on as well ... and they're all up for election too. There was never a better time to apply the screws ...
[That said, remember also that there are assembly"persons" and senators to beat up on as well ...]
I only wish we could be sure there was somebody more effective in the wings. Carey was half asleep, Cuomo had Stature but never actually did anything, Pataki should be running Nassau County . . . quite a letdown after the days of titans.
Do the people upstate recognize the need to bring our taxes, expenditures, and services into line with competing states, or have they been fooled into thinking that the City is the cause of all their problems?
Rule of scapegoating here is "cut off that waste of money at the (northern) Westchester line and it'll be Jubilee upstate." After all, if the sausagemakers can blame somebody ELSE, then the peasants with torches won't come after them. Same as in the private sector - blame the last "management" and when you've been in too long, blame the unions. If you've been in even longer, then it's the guys on the other side of the pipeline that are screwing everything up.
But yeah, the politicos are still playing the same old tired game. I was born and raised in the Bronx, spent half my life in the city, the other half up here. It's absolutely amusing how folks in the city believe we're a bunch of rubes living in Canada while the folks up here believe every problem can be solved by nuking NYC. Just amazing and the politicos on both sides of the "offending border" continue to play it up to their own advantage while we ALL burn.
Reprivitization, at least of the operation of the system, woulf likely be more efficent in the long run, but judging by the current Edsion-NY Public School privitization battle (20 percent reading compency levels -- what's wrong with that?), it would make some of the NIMBY fights look like a walk in the park compared to the special interests that would oppose it.
Bset hope in the immediate future will be for Pataki to decide he needs a few extra NYC votes in the next 18 months for his 2002 battle with Andrew Cuomo and gives Peter Kalikow some more money for the subway system (which in the end would probably go into another $50 million study of the Second Ave. subway line, but we can always hope the cash might trickle down into the actual operation of the system)
[Bset hope in the immediate future will be for Pataki to decide he needs a few extra NYC votes in the next 18 months for his 2002 battle with Andrew Cuomo and gives Peter Kalikow some more money for the subway system (which in the end would probably go into another $50 million study of the Second Ave. subway line, but we can always hope the cash might trickle down into the actual operation of the system)]
I hope so. The last election got us the flat rate Metrocard . . .
I doubt that. Private industry is about making a profit. If the private NYCDOT lines give lousy service to the boroughs, what could we expect them to do on the subway?
The TA is there to help improve NY's energy efficiency, fight air pollution, decrease congestion on roads and give people a way to get around. The school board has also made it possible for schoolkids to use the TA to get to school. By and large, the TA has been fulfilling these goals, which private industry still has not figured out how to price.
I'm not a socialist. I don't think govt. should poke its nose everywhere. But mass transit in NY is as essential a social service, a conveyor of social justice, if you will, as any other essential govt. service. That needs to be kept in mind.
I doubt that. Private industry is about making a profit. If the private NYCDOT lines give lousy service to the boroughs, what could we expect them to do on the subway?
I'm not sure that the (subsidized) bus companies provide much of a lesson. Bus service, more so than subway service, is inherently a money-loser (although some of the lines do run in the black). Even with all its gross inefficiencies, the subway system comes reasonably close to making a profit, granted without taking capital expenditures into account. A more efficient private operator ... you never know.
[I doubt that. Private industry is about making a profit. If the private NYCDOT lines give lousy service to the boroughs, what could we expect them to do on the subway?]
I don't think that a private operator that's a) a monopoly b) subsidized c) forced to provide uneconomical services at a given rate is a good comparison. They're basically public companies with greed and graft attached.
The private transit companies before unification are probably a more apt comparison. They carried on bravely despite the City's efforts to kill them with the 5c fare and the IND. As soon as they went, the fare soared, the subways started losing money like crazy, the unions took over, the system stopped growing and started to shrink, and service levels began their slow downard slide.
The economics of running a subway today aren't that much different than they were back then. Off-peak and Saturday traffic is lowerand employees earn more, but passengers also earn more and a private comapany could run the system with much less labor -- no token clerks, conductors, or TO's, although a smaller group would have to perform some of their functions.
[The TA is there to help improve NY's energy efficiency, fight air pollution, decrease congestion on roads and give people a way to get around. The school board has also made it possible for schoolkids to use the TA to get to school. By and large, the TA has been fulfilling these goals, which private industry still has not figured out how to price.
I'm not a socialist. I don't think govt. should poke its nose everywhere. But mass transit in NY is as essential a social service, a conveyor of social justice, if you will, as any other essential govt. service. That needs to be kept in mind.]
I'm not suggesting we eliminate mass transit, just that given a bit of competition and freedom from certain kinds of government interference private enterprise can do it cheaper and better. I think that's almost always the case.
It's hard to believe, but there was a time when companies *wanted* to build subway lines in New York.
"Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the TA's priorities have changed, from moving trains to avoiding lawsuits, placating the Feds, pacifying interest groups, and trimming the budget in the wrong places because they aren't free to trim where they should -- inefficient staffing and work rules, bloated bids, overdesigned projects like LIRR GCT access, not to mention huge investments like the 63rd Street tunnels that sit unused for years because of the vagaries of politics, ultimately costing more in wasted interest than they cost to build."
Setting aside the issue of the LIRR tunnels, on which you and I will disagree, you have spoken well and truly. The MTA today is probably much more constrained today, and must serve more masters, some of whom have only narrow, selfish interests at heart. I am grateful that a project like 63rd St or Archer Av was finally finished, wishing it had been done sooner.
[Setting aside the issue of the LIRR tunnels, on which you and I will disagree, you have spoken well and truly. The MTA today is probably much more constrained today, and must serve more masters, some of whom have only narrow, selfish interests at heart. I am grateful that a project like 63rd St or Archer Av was finally finished, wishing it had been done sooner.]
Out of curiosity, why do you disagree about the LIRR tunnels? The only thing I remember you saying about it was that the existing infrastructure option was listen in the EIS.
From your prior post, if I am not mistaken, you have disagreed on the need for the ESA project. If that is not true, I apologize.
Capacity at Penn Station and under the East River is clearly inadequate to improve LIRR service. In fact, MTA has documented that the real bottleneck is in fact the tunnel capacity under the East River. We must add tunnel capacity under the East River; there are no other options. As of 2001, the LIRR has an existing tunnel stretching from 63rd St/2nd Av to 41 Av at Northern Blvd. (the 63rd St Connector project, starting in 1995, allowed MTA to extend the LIRR tunnel as well).
Increasing capacity at Penn requires adding another tunnel under the river to it - but we already have a $1.5 billion tunnel completed at 63rd St, and riders would benefit from being taken to GCT and Midtown, so why not use it? The Preferred Alternative involves boring a tunnel west on 63rd, curving south to Park Av and below Metro-North's tracks. The line would end in an LIRR terminal which would not interfere with current Metro-North traffic.
The required work in Queens involves digging tunnels under the Sunnyside Yard to connect the main and PW lines to this tunnel. There is also a service yard which must be built. Diverting some service to GCT means fewer trains waiting for clearance to go to Penn Station, so train service to Penn can improve. And LIRR trains going to GCT don't have to fight Amtrak and NJ Transit traffic headed for Sunnyside Yard.
In Manhattan, MTA has to bore or blast its way west and then south. They want to do so in a manner minimizing the need to rebuild the foundations of buildings ("underpinning") and letters from property owners included in the FEIS clearly reinforce this decision.
Total cost is $4.3 billion, with $1,7 billion in the current Capital Plan (enough to get some construction done). I believe a total of 13 miles of new tunnels will be dug.
According to ridership projections, ESA would create the 4th largest commuter rail "system" in the U.S.
Isn't MTA already the largest commuter railroad in the world (MNRR + LIRR)? And that's not counting NJ Transit's NEC line into Penn!
Isn't MTA already the largest commuter railroad in the world
From pictures I've seen, I'd guess that a single commuter train in Bombay probably has more passengers than all the MTA commuter trains combined. :-)
The statistics usually list them as seperate properties. So it is LIRR, then METRA, then MNR, then "new" LIRR (the "old" LIRR would likely drop a few spots). ESA would be larger than NJT, SEPTA or Boston or the others.
MTA isn't a commuter railroad, it's an umbrella funding organization.
[From your prior post, if I am not mistaken, you have disagreed on the need for the ESA project. If that is not true, I apologize.]
OK, I see the misunderstanding. No, I'm all in favor of it (although I would give the 2nd Avenue subway priority because it would benefit more people, commuters and subway travellers both, for a given expenditure).
What bothers me about the ESA project is the way they're going about it. I see no reason to build the annex or the additional Park Avenue tunnel. With both the West Side and Hell's Gates lines almost unused, and GCT and the Park Avenue tunnels underutilized but Penn Station maxed out, it's possible to divert MN and NHRR trains to Penn Station, freeing up the lower level of GCT and two tracks for LIRR service via the 63rd Street tunnel. It's win-win all around -- better coverage for the LIRR, enough capacity to max out three inbound tracks on the LIRR main line and allow use of the fourth for reverse commutes, significantly lower cost, and faster completion. And it opens up the possibility of intriguing new services via the LIRR tracks.
[Capacity at Penn Station and under the East River is clearly inadequate to improve LIRR service. In fact, MTA has documented that the real bottleneck is in fact the tunnel capacity under the East River.]
[We must add tunnel capacity under the East River; there are no other options. As of 2001, the LIRR has an existing tunnel stretching from 63rd St/2nd Av to 41 Av at Northern Blvd. (the 63rd St Connector project, starting in 1995, allowed MTA to extend the LIRR tunnel as well).]
There are four LIRR tunnels to Penn Station, and their are four tracks on the LIRR main line. Amtrak runs only two trains an hour, and NJT sends trains to the yard, but the NJT trains could be used instead for the reverse LIRR service that will be provided from GCT. So where's the mismatch?
Not, as I said, that I'm opposed to using the 63rd Street tunnel -- but what we'll end up with I think is effectively two extra tunnels to Penn, and there are some fairly fun things you can do with them.
[Total cost is $4.3 billion, with $1,7 billion in the current Capital Plan (enough to get some construction done). I believe a total of 13 miles of new tunnels will be dug.]
Why stretch a project like this past five years? The interest costs are astronomical, and nothing is gained.
I like what you've written.
This plan could work. Amtrak would insist that its Acela service not be interfered with, and there may be other construction issues as well.
Please note that the deep bore (and therefore the extra LIRR level) is directly linked to the underpinning issue, and keeping property owners happy is important. Of course, the train could go up a grade along Park Av until it reached the current lower level. Another issue in the FEIS was loop tracks etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you. It would be interesting to find out if somebody at MTA had thought of this, and if so, why it was shot down. There would have been more than one reason.
They say they are going deep bore with the current plan because it is cheaper than doing a lot of shoring and going straight into GCT's Madison Yard, which is at the same height as the lower level, and to the north. That was the original plan for where to put LIRR.
Presumably it is the same cost issue even if MNR let its sister agency use some of its terminal tracks: more expensive shoring to come into the GCT lower level. I would have been interested to see them explicitly consider using GCT lower level for ESA in their studies. (Maybe it IS in there, just haven't seen it.) Kind of hard to just take MNR's position without challenge.
[They say they are going deep bore with the current plan because it is cheaper than doing a lot of shoring and going straight into GCT's Madison Yard, which is at the same height as the lower level, and to the north. That was the original plan for where to put LIRR]
I never understood that business about the yard. Why go into the yard and use the lower level for MN storage rather than going into the lower level and using the *yard* for storage?
[I never understood that business about the yard. Why go into the yard and use the lower level for MN storage rather than going into the lower level and using the *yard* for storage?]
Because MNR and LIRR refuse to work together?
My guess is that MNR would argue they won't use all their station tracks for storage long-term, and point to the four or so other yards for their storage needs. I'd guess they'd also say that the lower level will be plenty busy, particularly under the ARC tunnel scenarios linking them (and NJT) with NYP. Who knows? Something accepted at the outset and not fully explored.
[Please note that the deep bore (and therefore the extra LIRR level) is directly linked to the underpinning issue, and keeping property owners happy is important. Of course, the train could go up a grade along Park Av until it reached the current lower level. Another issue in the FEIS was loop tracks etc.]
Maybe they could leave a bell mouth for future expansion to six track service with an annex. That would allow for eventual increases in MN service, or a direct 42nd-Madison-Broadway BMT or new RR tunnel connection, or NJT service (some of the current NJT access plans use the existing lower level).
Either way I imagine they'd have to bore the tunnel because of that loop and the flying junction.
[I'm not disagreeing with you. It would be interesting to find out if somebody at MTA had thought of this, and if so, why it was shot down. There would have been more than one reason.]
I'd be curious too.
It will also allow for direct transfer between the Long Island Railroad and Metro-North Railroad, making travel between suburban areas much easier. In fact, I think they should begin to merge the railroads, or at least the fare structures.
:-) Andrew
That's a nice idea.
(although the dispatcher at 242nd Street told me back in 1967 that rush hour came, they forgot about the schedule and just pushed out as many trains as they could).
That sure has changed (specifically out of 242nd)!
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that the TA's priorities have changed, from moving trains to
avoiding lawsuits, placating the Feds, pacifying interest groups, and trimming the budget in the
wrong places because they aren't free to trim where they should -- inefficient staffing and work
rules, bloated bids, overdesigned projects like LIRR GCT access, not to mention huge
investments like the 63rd Street tunnels that sit unused for years because of the vagaries of
politics, ultimately costing more in wasted interest than they cost to build.
Why should they bother?
What's in it for the TA?
The current squeeze is great for the bottom line. It means
more money for capital projects to relieve the passenger
congestion.
I was hoping my polemic would flush out TA apologists :-)
Most of your comments refer to the lead article and not to my post. I shall reserve my reply to those items that I raised - in particular to item 5.
1. Increasing the size of the fleet is a fairly easy (though costly) way of increasing capacity, and, as the Daily News noted, it is being done. However, it is not the panacea some people would have us believe. For one thing, it creates some problems of its own, such as straining yard and shop capacity...
I agree that there are more costs associated with an increased fleet size than simply the cost of the goods. However, the TA did double the size of the Corona Yard prior to the R33/36's coming on board. I would assume that they would factor storage space, additional maintenance costs, etc. into the real cost of additional cars.
Any solution that promises to decrease the current load levels while maintaining current or increased demand will require more cars. It's a question of how many and where they will run - on existing tracks or new tracks. Running them on existing tracks is less expensive. Of course, the TA can revert to their previous policy and drive the customers away with continued inadequate service levels.
5. Getting better cooperation from riders is very important. Dwell time is a reason that more service couldn?t be operated on some lines even if subway cars were available. It?s a chicken-and-egg thing - dwell times skyrocketed in the late 1970s/early 1980s when service was unreliable and people assumed that the train in front of them would be the last one for a while. However, dwell time has long been a problem. I know that some people on this board claim that 40 trains per hour could be operated throughout the system (with the existing signals) if cars were available, but the simple fact is that they couldn?t. As many as 40 trains per hour were scheduled on some parts of the system many years ago, but through-put (the number of trains actually passing a given location in a given time frame) never was that high. Moreover, when 40 trains (or more) per hour were scheduled on, say, the Lexington Avenue Line, it was before the Contract One IRT local tracks were signaled in the 1930s (When the first subway opened, only the express tracks - including the center track between 96th Street and 145th Street - had signals.
So, quotes involving the original subway and the express tracks would be valid.
"Originally eight-car express trains were operated at 2 1/2 minute intervals and five-car locals at three minute intervals; now ten-car expresses are operated at a minimum interval of one minute and forty-eight seconds at a speed of twenty-five miles per hour including stops [33.3 tph] and six-car local trains at the same interval." W. F. Reeves, Asst. Engineer, Interborough Rapid Transit Company, "Transit Problems in America", International Engineering Congress, San Francisco, Sept 20-25, 1915, reprinted in Interborough Bulletin.
"The current NYCT signal system on the Lexington Avenue line is designed to allow 90-second headways, including a 30-second allowance for station dwell times...","The Manhattean East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS", MTA, 1995.
The BRT operated more than 60 tph on the Brooklyn Bridge, under block signal control, when cable operation ceased.
The elevated sections - which didn?t see as much service as the trunk through the central business district since they were branches - had semaphore-type signals). 60 trains per hour (using five-car trains) were contemplated on the local tracks, and 30 trains per hour (using eight-car trains) were contemplated on the express tracks. It should also be remembered that when through-put was above 30 trains per hour, many years ago, the subway was a much more personnel-centered operation than it is today. There were several people on each platform (at least the more crowded ones) to control boardings and alightings, and there were several conductors on each train (before multiple-unit door control, at least) to encourage people to get on or off. With personnel being the greatest component of NYCT?s operating costs, it?s unlikely that many more people will be hired to do crowd control.
Somebody in the TA had better evaluate how effective their platform conductors are. My own observations indicate that they add about 15 seconds to dwell time. These observations are based on a comparison of express train dwell times at both 59th and Grand Central. More passengers interchange at 59th and the trains are more crowded at 59th, however the dwell time is considerably less at 59th.
The key to 40 tph operation is uniformity of operation. My observations indicate that the variability of tailway times is greater than that for headway times at all stations along the Lex. This indicates that no effort is made by NYCT to adhere to any fixed schedule. Systems that do operate at 40+ tph use vigorous methods to keep their trains on schedule at all stations. Such methods are neither labor nor capital intensive.
Funny, I don't recall apologizing for anything, smiley emoticon aside.
The quotes Mr. Bauman cited (and the information I provided about design headways in the original subway) indicate what was scheduled and what was designed, not what actually operates in the real world. As to whether the current Platform Controllers add to dwell time, which is the opposite of what they're out there for, well, Mr. Bauman sees what he sees, and I don't have data to either support his statement or refute it.
As to whether the size of the fleet should be increased, it should be and it is. Will it be enough? We'll see once all the cars are in and service is increased. All I was trying to convey was that it's easy to say, "buy more subway cars." It's another to arrange for the cars to be distributed, shopped, and stored in a planned, measured way. Saying "the subway should run more often" generates headlines in a mayoral election year; saying "build 7 new 20-carlength tracks in 148th Street Yard to allow for storage of subway cars" doesn't, except maybe in the neighborhood, which wouldn't want it anyway (I'm supposing both the numbers and the opposition here).
I've never ridden a system that schedules 40 trains per hour. Which systems schedule 40 trains per hour, and more importantly, which of them actually GET it?
Mr. Bauman and I are on the same side of the fence here. We both believe that a better job can be done with the existing infrastructure. I just have a more jaundiced view as to just how much can be done and how much can't be done.
David
I've never ridden a system that schedules 40 trains per hour. Which systems schedule 40 trains per hour, and more importantly,
which of them actually GET it?
Reference is made to an urban rail system that schedules and obtains 40+ tph in the "Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual". Moreover, it discusses the "secret" to its success. I would trust that most of the TA's engineers are familiar with this tome because they violate almost 100% of its recommendations. :-) This system handles more passengers than NYC, so scalability is not a viable objection.
I'm not familiar with the manual (being neither subway scheduler nor engineer nor planner). However, I would imagine that obtaining 40+ trains per hour would involve certain dwell time mitigation methods that probably wouldn't be legal in the U.S., let alone New York. Am I correct in assuming that this system of which we speak is outside the United States?
David
However, I would imagine that obtaining 40+ trains per hour would involve certain dwell time mitigation methods that probably wouldn't be legal in the U.S., let alone New York.
The techniques used are both inexpensive and legal in the U.S. and could be employed in New York.
Am I correct in assuming that this system of which we speak is outside the United States?
If the system carries more passengers than NYC, then it has to be outside the United States. I discovered that from reading the MTA website. :-)
There is at least one other smaller system outside the US that has 40 tph capability but not sufficient demand. That system, in Ankara, is CBTC based and not directly applicable to NYC. There are two LRV systems in the US, that also provide 40 tph operation - also under CBTC.
I should have realized that the system had to be outside the U.S. Guess it's past my bedtime.
But my interest has been piqued, and I'm guessing that others would like to know as well, so: Which system is it, and what are the methods?
David
This document was prepared under by the Transportation Research Board (TRB). At least one member of the TA is a member of the task force that created it.
The section on Fixed Block Systems (p 3-9) gives the details. That digital clock is real low tech but it works. The TA's Grand Central clock does not work that way and is useless.
A more thorough analysis will show that the critical point is uniformity and not a specific limit for dwell time. The total of braking time, dwell time and acceleration times define the minimum headway. The braking time is the time to brake from the minimum cushion (750 feet in NYC) to a stop. The dwell time is the amount time the train is stationary in the station. The acceleration time is the amount of time required for the train to clear the station from a stop. The total of these 3 times (with a dwell time of 30 seconds) is less than 90 seconds.
Having now read the document Mr. Bauman was thoughtful enough to provide a link to, I can only say that it buttresses my arguments. As I surmised, one of the reasons for Moscow's success in getting throughput of 40 trains per hour involves something that would most likely not be permitted in North America (TRB's very words, though my supposition -- prior to reading the document -- that the method would be "illegal" probably overstated the case): closing the doors before all passengers have entered/exited. As to the "countup clock," I have seen it in operation in Budapest, where the system is based on Moscow's (other than Line #1, now called the "Millennium Line," which opened in 1896 and whose station design was the prototype for the Contract One IRT). I and the people with me (several of whom were longtime transit professionals) felt that a "countdown clock" showing the time remaining until the next train's arrival would be of more comfort to riders than one showing how many minutes and seconds have passed since the last train left. "Countdown clocks" are in use in several cities, and NYCT's Automatic Train Supervision project will involve such clocks -- while they're not doing this yet (since ATS is still being installed), the screens installed recently in many stations (that currently display the time and canned messages) are designed to interface with ATS and display this information.
The clocks at Grand Central show the Conductor how long the train has been berthed, giving a "nudge" to close the doors. As to the previous assertion that the Platform Controllers at Grand Central are more hindrance than help, one of the people checking dwell times there has informed me that when they're proficient, Platform Controllers are of tremendous help in minimizing dwell times.
I would also submit that acceleration time has increased since the TRB study was done (the information in the study is from 1995). The removal of field shunting has reduced top-end speed and increased the amount of time it takes to reach that speed, especially on up-grades (though the new cars do better on up-grades). In addition, "grade" timers and wheel detectors have been installed in many places since 1995. It should also be noted that automatic key-by has been removed from many signals over the past two years or so (not a factor in acceleration, but a constraint on throughput nevertheless).
Note: I am mentioning these recent developments not to opine that they should or should not have been done, rather to provide some insight into the factors faced -- for better or worse -- in trying to increase through-put in NYC's subway.
David
I think that "being neither subway scheduler nor engineer nor planner", you missed the underlying principle involved. I tried to briefly point out what the TRB task force also missed in my last post. Let me try to elaborate more completely.
The underlying principle is that:
1. if two or more trains travel along the same track
2. and if they behave exactly the same way at each point along the track
3. and they are all start from the same point on the tracks but at different times
4. and that these times are at equal intervals of say 90 seconds
then each of the trains will keep the same temporal relationship between one another at each point along the track e.g. they will always be separated by 90 seconds.
Consider the Brooklyn Bridge tracks during the cable car days. Trains left Park Row at 45 second intervals (they ran 90 tph). The same trains arrived at Sands St. at 45 second intervals. They did not collide because they kept the exact same speed profile going across the bridge. Trains neither gained nor lost ground on one another during the journey across the bridge. BTW the 45 second interval was due to a weight restriction on the bridge - not an operational limitation of the system.
This is the principle that they are trying to follow in Moscow. Clearly, trains powered independently by electric motor and operated by humans will not perform the same identical motions as those pulled by cable. The operators can make corrections to minimize accumulated deviations from indentical motion, if they know how far behind they are from their leader and how far behind they should be. An operator can adjust his speed or a conductor can adjust the dwell time to make sure that he stays 90 seconds behind his leader. All that is needed is a clock that indicates the elapsed time from when the leader passed. This clock could be between stations or within stations to perform this function. However, making the correction in a station makes more sense because dwell time is the most variable component of a train's speed profile.
Consider the difference between this system and timing only station dwell time. First dwell time regulation. Consider three trains: A, B and C. Suppose the operator of B is a jack rabbit compared to A and C. The distance and time between A and B will get shorter and the distance and time between B and C will get longer. Eventually B will catch up to A but not as fast as he might have had there been no dwell time control at the stations. However, B will catch up to A. B will be carrying a relatively light load because passengers will have continued to arrive at the stations at a uniform rate (Poisson distribution). Moreover, poor C will find that there are increasing numbers of passengers on the platforms waiting for him because B left early. (The reverse occurs in the more likely scenerio that B is driving a train with several dead motors.) :-)
Now consider following time regulation with the same 3 trains. Jack rabbit B arrives at a station earlier than expected. He will not be able to leave earlier. His reward for arriving early is to increase his dwell time. B is continually being forced back onto uniform schedule by syncing his departure to that of his leader; he will not be able to gain on him. The reverse occurs for B driving a slow train. There will be less dwell time in the station.
Clearly there are some additional points to consider. Given the fact that the trains keep the same temporal interval between themselves, what condtions are required to guarantee that they do not occupy same physical space within this interval? How is the headway affected by dwell time and how does the required maximum permitted dwell time relate to the real world? etc. etc.
The answer to these questions are rather straight forward. The system does work and I'd be happy to elaborate, if you can't work out these details for yourself.
I ran simulations for various headways using a simple spreadsheet. I was able to show that 40 tph operation is possible with the present signal system because the back to front distance between trains is always greater than 750 feet. Just let a train leave the terminal every 90 seconds and if they behaved reasonably identically then there would be no problem. I started seeing yellow signal aspects, when I added large random perturbations. The Moscow system removes the effects of such perturbations as quickly as they appear.
I did understand. The key word here is "if." IF every train were operated in an identical manner by the crew and IF loading were evenly distributed per car and per train and IF people boarded/alighted in an expeditious manner, then 90-second headways could be maintained. My argument is that in NYC, trains aren't operated identically (they should be, and they should be run according to the most aggressive profile possible consistent with safety, but they aren't), loading isn't evenly distributed per car and per train, and people don't board/alight expeditiously (some things can be done to shorten dwell time, and in places some things ARE being done, but people have gotten into bad habits and it's a tough job to change that).
Without wanting to stray too far into a discussion of political ideologies, I would submit that short dwell times in Moscow are a byproduct of the Russians' totalitarian recent past ("you will step lively -- OR ELSE!"). I would also wager that as the country moves farther away from that past, dwell times will increase. There were signs of this last year in Budapest when I visited: auto ownership is skyrocketing, and the reason given was that the people there wanted to be JUST LIKE US after being "under the thumb" for so long.
David
At present the morning rush hour passengers at Grand Central are distributed among 25 trains which have a dwell time of 34 seconds with a standard deviation of 9 seconds (my measurements).
What do you think will happen to this dwell time, if the same passengers were distributed among 30, 35 or 40 trains?
I believe 27 express trains are currently scheduled in the peak hour (it might be 26, going to 27 soon). I also believe the dwell time would go down, which I think is Mr. Bauman's point. The question, however, is whether the passengers would know that service has been increased (no matter how many announcements are made, no matter how many ads are placed in the papers, etc.) and guide themselves accordingly, or continue to do what they do now, which is to block doors, hold doors for friends/relatives/strangers/people who don't even want that train, stick backpacks/baby strollers/actual babies in the doors, etc. In other words, what's the point of scheduling 30, 35, or 40 trains in an hour if passenger behavior won't allow that many trains to operate through a given point during that hour?
I would suggest a more incremental approach, which seems to be what NYCT is doing. Add a train at a time as the various mitigation methods take hold, up to a point where either the line can't physically handle any more service (whether 30 trains as NYCT claims, 40 trains as Mr. Bauman claims, or somewhere in between) or the returns from the mitigation methods diminish to a point where scheduling more service wouldn't result in any more service actually passing through a given point in the peak hour, even though (theoretically) track and/or signal system capacity is still there.
David
I believe 27 express trains are currently scheduled in the peak hour (it might be 26, going to 27 soon).
These numbers seem reasonable and I'll be happy to use them as a working hypothesis.
The question, however, is whether the passengers would know that service has been increased (no matter how many announcements are made, no matter how many ads are placed in the papers, etc.)...I would suggest a more incremental approach, which seems to be what NYCT is doing. Add a train at a time as the various mitigation methods take hold, up to a point where either the line can't physically handle any more service (whether 30 trains as NYCT claims, 40 trains as Mr. Bauman claims, or somewhere in between)
I must respectfully disagree, although I realize an incremental approach is the only thing possible because of rolling stock shortages. I think "shock" therapy is necessary. I think a minimum 20% increase (27-32 tph) would be immediately noticed. The immediate result will be less crowded cars/platforms with 20% fewer people trying to cross the door thresholds.
Look at the variability of the current statistics (generally standard deviations are around 33% of sample means). If you wish to change rider habits, you must prove to them that their uncrowded train is not the result of the luck of a draw. You must move the mean a significant amount relative to the standard deviation to make any impact. Press releases don't do that.
Simply adding trains to the point of congestion won't work either. There must be a means to keep the trains on a uniform schedule. I am willing to concede that congestion will be reached with far fewer trains, when they are allowed to run in a random manner with respect to one another. This may account for the 10 tph difference between the TA's track capacity estimate and Moscow's.
Would Moscow's uptick clock work in NYC, when there is enough rolling stock and loading factors were reduced 20-30%? I think a controlled experiment can be made now. The Lex expresses enter Manhattan only 60% full. The variability for headways is still bad as are differences in loading between trains, etc. Let me suggest that Moscow style clocks be installed in all the Bronx stations and 125th St. Teach the C/R's and dispatchers how to recognize 4:37 and and 2:18. (13 tph for the branches and 26 tph for the merged service, the value for stations between E180th and 238th is left as an exercise for senior TA schedule makers). See what happens to service reliability.
"Let me suggest that Moscow style clocks be installed in all the Bronx stations and 125th St. Teach the C/R's and dispatchers how to recognize 4:37 and and 2:18. (13 tph for the branches and 26 tph for the merged service, the value for stations between E180th and 238th is left as an exercise for senior TA schedule makers). See what happens to service reliability."
That's a nice idea. You've stated in a previous post that you met the MTA Chair (was this Conway or the previous one?) So why not compose a letter with this idea worked out and send it to Peter Kalokow? I and perhaps others might sign onto it too (I would as long as you don't slant it anti-2nd Av) - and post the reply you get here on Subtalk.
I never got an impression that Stephen is anti 2nd Ave, but rather that he advocates the possibilities and QUICK solutions to improve the service. IMHO he makes a very believable point (especially if YOU stop to assume he's anti transit :-).
Arti
"Let me suggest that Moscow style clocks be installed in all the Bronx stations and 125th St. Teach the C/R's and dispatchers how to recognize 4:37 and and 2:18. (13 tph for the branches and 26 tph for the merged service, the value for stations between E180th and 238th is left as an exercise for senior TA schedule makers). See what happens to service reliability."
That's a nice idea. You've stated in a previous post that you met the MTA Chair (was this Conway or the previous one?) So why not compose a letter with this idea worked out and send it to Peter Kalokow? I and perhaps others might sign onto it too (I would as long as you don't slant it anti-2nd Av) - and post the reply you get here on Subtalk.
You've stated in a previous post that you met the MTA Chair (was this Conway or the previous one?)
What I said was the truth. That was a very long time ago and a very previous chairman. (I daresay that we are still paying for his debt service). I did not arrange the meeting but was included with about half a dozen others because of a constituency that I represented at that time. It was a most cordial meeting and eminently forgetable by all attendees. We wanted the MTA to institute a new policy on all its rail lines. The chairman was not adverse and gave us some very sound pointers as to who to approach in the various operating agencies and the order in which to proceed. Our political point man, the one who had arranged the meeting with the chairman, did not have the discipline to proceed along the lines that the MTA chairman proposed. We had a meeting with the wrong agency and our proposal was stillborn. A few years later another person was able to sandbag the MTA into instituting that policy by taking an entirely different political route.
So why not compose a letter with this idea worked out and send it to Peter Kalokow?
How many engineers, planners and schedule makers does the TA employ? How many consultants do they hire? These are the people who should be making such trial proposals. I will not bear them any malice, if they co-opt this idea. My guess is that the only honorarium they will receive, if they place it in the TA Suggestion Box, will be their severence package. :-)
That was a very long time ago and a very previous [MTA] chairman. (I daresay that we are still paying for his debt service).
So you were at the castle of the Holy Ronan Empire?
So you were at the castle of the Holy Ronan Empire?
I did not say the most previous chairman. :-)
"(Ron)So why not compose a letter with this idea worked out and send it to Peter Kalokow?
How many engineers, planners and schedule makers does the TA employ? How many consultants do they hire? These are the people who should be making such trial proposals. I will not bear them any malice, if they co-opt this idea. My guess is that the only honorarium they will receive, if they place it in the TA Suggestion Box, will be their severence package. :-)"
All kidding aside, you (and I too) spend a substantial bit of time posting here. You're passionate and articulate about your ideas. Why not address a letter to the Chairman and find out what happens? Come on, I dare you.
Or do you only know how to roar here on Subtalk?
What you have to understand is that Steve can't make the connection between the spreadsheet and the real world. In the real world T/O's come in a variety of skill levels, and so do conductors. Equipment works well most of the time, and falters some of the time. A procedure that looks great on a spreadsheet may fail miserably on the real thing.
In Europe, the underlying assumptions about lawsuits, liability, individual rights, and safety are not the same as in the US. They are not the same today as in the 1950's. The posts in this thread make that clear.
Now, Steve's math is great, and his ability to find the appropriate mathematical tool or model for the question at hand is laudable. I think an experiment with some of his ideas would be great. Maybe the "L" train's new systems will allow that.
But something else is required: Honesty and openness about recording and interpreting data. You start with a hypothesis, and see if the data support you - not bend the data to suit a prejudice, or imply that you have data when you do not.
...Steve can't make the connection between the spreadsheet and the real world.
I have learned the following from nearly 40 years in an engineering career, starting with the moon program. If something is theoretically possible, then it has a chance of success in the real world. If something is theoretically impossible, then it has no chance of success in the real world.
A procedure that looks great on a spreadsheet may fail miserably on the real thing.
No quarrel there. A procedure that looks bad on a spreadsheet more often than not looks far worse in the real world.
There are important lessons to be learned from the former type failure. Usually such disappointments are due to not including all parameters into the mathematical model.
We are agreed that it is theoretcally possible to achieve maximum service levels by adhering to a well controlled schedule with uniform temporal intervals between trains. It is fairly easy to show that uniform intervals with a concave-increasing dwell time function is also the optimum solution. It is also fairly easy to show that uncontrolled operation yields to operational extremes not the operational means. The data strongly suggest that the TA is operating the system at random with no effort made to control headways.
In the real world T/O's come in a variety of skill levels, and so do conductors.
The point is to provide T/O's and C/R's with the necessary tools required to adhere to a standard skill level with minimum variation. This hasn't been easy. Speedometers did not appear in all cabs until the 1980's. There is no system-wide time standard.
I'm sure is an easier job to adequately train 7,000 odd T/O's and C/R's, whose livelihood depends on their performance than to "educate" 3.5 million pasengers about how to queue in line while entering and leaving trains. The T/O's and C/R's can be replaced by machines that can adhere to such schedules so it they will probably improve their performance with such positive reinforcement. Just think of those station clocks as bio-feedback.
BTW, if the TA thinks that laminar passenger flow will solve their dwell time problems, then their car design is wrong.
In Europe, the underlying assumptions about lawsuits, liability, individual rights, and safety are not the same as in the US.
I was certainly struck by the vast number of seats in Paris Metro cars that were "reservee aux mutiles de la guerre des heures d'affluence". I'm sure that many of the medals so proudly worn by the citizens in the old USSR were similar battle awards. :-) Get real, the passenger injury rates for European and most non-Indian Asian lines are no better nor worse than that for the NYC subway.
Maybe the "L" train's new systems will allow that.
Perhaps you can persuade Mr. David to supply you with the performance criteria for this new system.
But something else is required: Honesty and openness about recording and interpreting data. You start with a hypothesis, and see if the data support you - not bend the data to suit a prejudice, or imply that you have data when you do not.
I think I have been honest supporting my hypotheses with published data that was freely available by all to verify. I have been very careful to use data supplied by the TA or some other official agency. The data isn't bent nor skewed. It simply shows that the TA is doing a lousy job; it should because they are doing a lousy job.
I agree with every point (or rather, reply) you've made-except the last one. I'll stretch a little and say the jury is still out.
Good. We've got some common ground to start with now. I'd like to see the R-143's get here and start making an impact.
By the way, are you going to the supplemental EIS meeting April 19th about 2nd Av Subway (MTA HQ, 347 Madison 6-8PM).
I encourage you to go and talk - even if you want to tell them to scrap the whole thing.
I'd like to see the R-143's get here and start making an impact.
Are you so willing to give up a seat? Did you take a look at the decreased seating capacity for these things? They're in the MTA's East Side Study.
By the way, are you going to the supplemental EIS meeting April 19th about 2nd Av Subway (MTA HQ, 347 Madison 6-8PM).
I'm usually occupied on Patriot's Day. Besides, the last person I spoke to at MTA Headquarters was the chairman. I'm afraid Doug Sussman's rank just doesn't measure up to my imprtance. :-)
"Are you so willing to give up a seat? Did you take a look at the decreased seating capacity for these things? They're in the MTA's East Side Study."
You're right. Let's tell MTA to send 'em all back to the factory and forget about it. No seats (no train cars) are far better. :0)
You're right. Let's tell MTA to send 'em all back to the factory and forget about it. No seats (no train cars) are far better. :0)
From the MTA's Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee
No Window Seats for New Trains
The Council wrote to NYC Transit in October to protest the agency's decision to forgo including standard conversational-style seating, which allows for popular back-to-back window seats, in its new R143 car procurement. The new cars instead will have IRT-style longitudinal benches running down each side. NYC Transit informed the Council that sideways-only seating will improve passenger loading times and that focus group participants have expressed satisfaction with the design. However, participants of earlier focus groups, observed by Council staff, expressed a strong preference for a design which included window seats, a fact the Council noted in its letter.
Now just what were you saying about bending data to support hypotheses? :-)
With light loads, conversational-style seating is preferable.
With moderate loads, it's a tossup -- with conversational-style seating everyone can sit, but those in the window seats are forced into an awkward position.
With heavy loads, conversational-style seating eats up valuable standing space. The general public probably doesn't realize it (which explains why the general public prefers it), but conversational-style seating that contributes to overcrowding.
Conversational-style seating is slightly better off-peak. Longitudinal seating is much better peak. Unless the TA plans on running different cars depending on the time of day, longitudinal is the right way to go.
According to the "Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual" (TCQSM), the area occupied by a transverse seat is 5.4 sq ft and the area occupied by a longitudinal seat is 4.3 sq ft. Each transverse seat uses up 1.1 more sq ft of standing space. NYCT allocates 3 sq ft for each standing passenger in crush load situations. This means that the standee tradeoff for transverse vs. longitudinal seats is 0.37 passengers per transverse seat or only 3-5 per car under the most severe loading conditions. It's not going to make much of a difference.
Indeed, the TA tries to operate their trains within "guideline" capacity which is calculated on the basis of 4 sq ft per passenger (seated or standing). So the requirement for additional standing room is an admission that the TA intends to operate these trains in excess of their own published "guideline" capacities.
Of course the passengers would prefer transverse seating. Give them credit, they are not as gullible as TA brass would like them to be.
Of course the passengers would prefer transverse seating.
Are you sure of that?
go back a few posts to the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee report.
Your tally is off. Transverse seating yields space that's useless for standing. Even if the seated passenger offers to tuck in his feet, no standee is going to stand in that little space in front of a window seat. That's a waste of good standing room. And the seating is less flexible as well -- on long bench seats, passengers can squeeze and fit an extra person, but cars with transverse seating can't have long bench seats.
As for preference, I'll take longitudinal seating any day over transverse seating. Those window seats are a pain to get into and out of, and the view is usually marred by an earlier passenger's nose grime.
Your tally is off.
I don't think so. I did a sanity check before citing the figures in the TCQSM. I suggest you do the same by taking a tape measure and doing some measurements, while sitting down. The swivel desk chair I'm currently sitting in measures 21" across exclusive of armrests. It also measures 36" from its back to a point just beyond my feet. This makes for a fairly comfortable occupied area of 5.25 sq ft. If I were to tuck my feet in the front to back distance would be 28" or 4.08 sq ft. I think the TCQSM figures of 4.3 and 5.4 sq ft for a seated passenger adequately account for the personal space immediately in front of the window. I gather that the current London rolling stock no longer has arm rests from the interior pictures I've seen. There goes one more vestige of urban civilization.
And the seating is less flexible as well -- on long bench seats, passengers can squeeze and fit an extra person, but cars with transverse seating can't have long bench seats.
The problem with long bench seats is two generously proportioned individuals taking up the space allotment for three. The nominal seating capacity on the R32-42 cars is 50. This breaks down to 2+7+7+7+2 on each side. You might wish to due a visual check of you own to see how fully occupied such free form bench seats reall are.
That's a waste of good standing room.
Actually standing is fairly wasteful of floor space. A standing male might occupy as might occupy 1.4-1.7 sq ft. (TCQSM). However, such individuals require life support in the form of a path around him for other passengers. This is why crush loads use the figure of 3.0 sq ft per standing passenger. It means that each standing passenger is occupying only 57% of the floor space alloted for him. On the other hand, the minimum seated space is 2.6-3.2 sq ft. This means that a seated passenger is occupying 59% of the floor space alloted to him.
The design extreme of a car with no seats and all standing room was tried once in the mid 1950's. It was not well received, to put it mildly. Actually, it was run off the rails within a week.
Just for the record here are the calculated seating, guideline and crush capacities for three 60' series:
R1/9: 56; 145; 164
R32/42: 50; 145; 175
R143(no cab): 40; 145; 178
The theory is that the NYCT is supposed to supply enough cars to operate below guideline capacity at all times.
My figure of 178 for the R143 crush load capacity differs substantially from the figure of 240 given in Table 9D-13 in the MTA's Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS. I believe this figure to be in error. This figure would allot each individual 2.46 sq ft of space. The TCQSM contains the following description: "Totally intolerable: 0.2 m2 (2.2 ft2) is the least amount of space that is occasionaly accepted." In practice I think the only way to achieve such crush loads would be if every passenger were to take a deep breath and hold it between stations.
[In the real world T/O's come in a variety of skill levels, and so do conductors. Equipment works well most of the time, and falters some of the time. A procedure that looks great on a spreadsheet may fail miserably on the real thing.]
True. But you're overlooking the empirical evidence that (a) the NYC City transit system was designed for and used to have a significantly higher throughput than it now achieves; (b) higher throughputs are routinely achieved in other systems. And barring any evidence that there's a real reason why NYC should be different, there's no excuse for not matching those empirical records. If somebody could point to an actual improvement in safety or service, I'd say, OK, maybe it's good that they removed the field shunting or added all those grade timers. But the subway was pretty safe back then, and it's pretty safe right now, and I see no evidence that anything significant is actually being done to make it safer.
So far I've seen no evidence whatsoever that the slowdown and capacity problems are political and bureaucratic in nature. Now, as far as I can tell, we're seeing yet another example in the making, as the TA washes its hands of the remaining redbirds rather than keeping what it would need to provide adequate service levels. Of course no one wants to patch up old cars, but what are our priorities here -- people fainting in the trains, or saving money on maintenance? What a difference from what I was read about the BMT the other day -- if they needed something from a car, they took it to the shop and hung sliding doors on it, or riveted (almost said welded) a gap filler on it, or connected it to a car of a different vintage.
The BMT had a "can do" attitude that the MTA can't begin to match. What we seem to have are a lot of "can't do's" instead: Can't run more trains. Can't keep enough cars. Can't restore the shunt coils and brakes. Can't speed restore key-by's and remove grade timers. Can't close doors on passengers. Can't leave sick passengers. Can't fix the Manhattan Bridge. Can't fix the fire damage on the F. Can't go to OPTO. Can't eliminate unnecessary token clerks. Can't bring airtrain into Manhattan. Can't build a full length, four track Second Avenue subway in the five or six years it actually takes to build a full length, four track subway. Can't finish GCT access in the four years it actually takes to add GCT access. Can't restore LIRR service in the Rockaways. Can't run 11 or 12 car trains in overcrowded stations. Hey, with the new cars coming, what would it really take now to run 11 or 12 car trains on the most crowded parts of the IND and IRT? Nothing much, really. But that's too much effort for a complacent bureacracy that frequently seems more interested in blaming the passengers for poor service than fixing it. And that I think makes it a sure thing that nothing will get done, because if we try, we may fail, but if we don't try, we're guaranteed to.
(end rant)
I sympathize with that. For every question you have there are a hundred more.
Are you sure buraeucracy has nothing to do with it. The rules of running a 'road have gotten tougher.
And BTW, the NYC subway is safer today than it was 40 years ago.
[Are you sure buraeucracy has nothing to do with it. The rules of running a 'road have gotten tougher.]
Heh, that was a typo -- I said exactly the opposite of what I intended.
I think the bureaucratic and regulatory problems are very real, both for the MTA and just about everybody else.
[And BTW, the NYC subway is safer today than it was 40 years ago.]
Is it really? I don't remember very many major accidents, apart from that string of derailments after they stopped maintaining the track.
What a difference from what I was read about the BMT the other day -- if they needed something from a car, they took it to the shop and hung sliding doors on it, or riveted (almost said welded) a gap filler on it, or connected it to a car of a different vintage.
Not all the BMT's talent was motivated by a "can do" spirit. The BMT operations outsourced its car maintenance to an outside firm - an unregulated subsidiary of its parent. The operating company paid top dollar for very good maintenance work. Money so paid and did not have to be shared with the City as profits from operations. Profits from the BMT's maintenance subsidiary were unregulated and did not have to be shared by the City.
[Closing the doors before all passengers have entered/exited]
But in fact, this seems to happen frequently enough. If there's a warning, who can complain?
Then we're probably talking about Moscow or Seoul. I think the Moscow subway can certainly offer us some lessons.
I think the Moscow subway can certainly offer us some lessons.
Check the headings for maximum number of trains per hour and minimum interval between trains.
in the 50's Chicago TA claimed capability of 90" headways in the State St subway. while I cannot prove they did it, they claimed they could--and THIS with relays and other 'obsolete' hardware but in an era when impossible was not so often an acceptable answer. Here in the SF bay area, we have 1. a subway that says maintenace on a two track line prevents overnight service(Canarsie anyone?) and 2 a transit operation which can't relay LRV's at a stub terminal without engendering delays. Think the Times Square end of the 7 with trains being held east of the diamond while T/O's fiddle.
Think the Times Square end of the 7 with trains being held east of the diamond while T/O's fiddle.
They ran 36 tph out of Times Sq in the 60's and 70's.
Could that be because of clearances? And work rules preventing workers and trains from using the track at the same time?
MTA crews replace track, then head for cubbyholes and wait for a train to pass, then resume.
The first thing I would ask Mr. Baumann is "show me the data." His observations run counter to some of yours - but chances are better that yours were not merely "thought experiments."
[Saying "the subway should run more often" generates headlines in a mayoral election year....]
That is a key point. Over the years, countless politicians and "advocates" have built their careers by demanding improvements to the subway system, garbage collection, park maintenance, etc.; once in a great while, they might even offer a few semi-substantive suggestions. However, those same politicians and "advocates" always oppose implementation of any improvements, lest they lose campaign material or go out of business, respectively.
You're ON to something there - remember that solving problems only removes them from the table for the next go-round. After all, our schools have been "in crisis" since *I* was a kid 40+ years ago. With all the elections in between, one would think there would have been some degree of improvement over all that time. :)
More passengers interchange at 59th
Really? That seems pretty counterintuitive to me. GC has the shuttle transfer, the 7 transfer, and the cross-platform (i.e., convenient) local-express transfer; 59th has the N/R transfer and a terribly inconvenient local-express transfer.
Check Steve's data - if he really has any...
Really? That seems pretty counterintuitive to me. GC has the shuttle transfer, the 7 transfer, and the cross-platform (i.e., convenient) local-express transfer; 59th has the N/R transfer and a terribly inconvenient local-express transfer.
Much can be learned from reading chapter 9D of the Manhattan East Side Alternatives Study on the MTA website.
From Fig. 9D-9 the load levels for expresses entering 59th is 116% as opposed to 109% for those leaving and entering Grand Central. There is a further reduction at Grand Central to 102%.
The worst station insofar as express loading goes is 86th, where the load levels increase from 74% to 116%. Heaven help a poor passenger tryig to exit an express at 86th. It must seem like being a salmon swimming upstream.
The Lex expresses loose passengers starting at 59th. They loose an equal amount 7%. However, going from 116% to 109% is far worse than going from 109% to 102%. There are loading problems at 59th due to the Lex running substantially above its service level capacity. There is no such problem at Grand Central.
The Origin-Destination Pairs Table 9D-6 shows some surprising results. The number of passengers from Queens using the downtown Lex (am rush) exceeds those from the Upper East Side by quite a margin. The description of the conditions at 59th St indicates that quite a substantial number of passengers transfer from the express to the N/R trains.
This study is trying to push their "Build Alternative 1", the 2nd Ave to BMT via 63rd St alternative. This alternative is only practical, if a significant number of passengers are diverted from the Upper East Side to use this new service. The primary candidates would be those already changing at 59th and using the BMT. Table 9D-21 shows such proposed usage. Their estimate is that leave load level at 59th St would be reduced to 92% of service level capacity. This places a figure of 24% of service load capacity leaving at 59th and 17% entering for a total passenger interchange of 41% of service load capacity. The MTA clearly fudged their numbers. There are inconsistencies with the data presented in Table 9D-9. The figures are not that high.
[Increasing the size of the fleet is a fairly easy (though costly) way of increasing capacity, and, as the Daily News noted, it is being done. However, it is not the panacea some people would have us believe. For one thing, it creates some problems of its own, such as straining yard and shop capacity – this wasn’t an issue when the fleet was larger, in the 1970s for example, because cars were being stored on the mainline (and being vandalized) and they weren’t being maintained properly.]
But how did they handle it before the 70's, when the fleet was larger and service was still good? And how much of the shop space problems have to do with married cars straining shop capacity?
They handled it by not maintaining the equipment (which led to the near-collapse of the system in the 1970s) and by buying massive numbers of new cars, which didn't work as advertised and which ended up not being maintained any better than the 40-year-old cars they were replacing.
If you've got enough space in the shops to inspect/repair/whatever X cars per week, regardless of their configuration, and you've got X+Y cars per week to inspect/repair/whatever, you're in trouble. Expanding shop hours will take one just so far. Eventually, more space has to be found.
David
[They handled it by not maintaining the equipment (which led to the near-collapse of the system in the 1970s) and by buying massive numbers of new cars, which didn't work as advertised and which ended up not being maintained any better than the 40-year-old cars they were replacing.]
That was in the 70's, after the experienced people all took advantage of the 20 year retirmeent. I remember it well -- the subway went from smooth functioning to a disaster zone in the space of a few years.
But I'm referring to the years *before* that, from 1904 to maybe 1968 or so. Higher ridership, more frequent service, more cars, and seemingly adequate maintenance. What changed?
"That was in the 70's, after the experienced people all took advantage of the 20 year retirmeent. I remember it well -- the subway went from smooth functioning to a disaster zone in the space of a few years."
It wasn't just that. The TA was not spending enough time or money maintaining the fleet. I'm not blaming the TA for all of this - politicians screwed the subway.
There ya go ... and just so you have my own place in time, I hired on with the "ta" just as that 20 year nut was exploding in the fireplace. Came on board in 1970, quit in 1971 ...
I know a lot of people have been frustrated with me here and there because I keep bringing up politics here on subtalk but the problems which plague every ANGLE of mass transit are entirely political. It's a conga line of asskicking from the governor's office right on down to the poor sap in the token booth. And like it or not, every nuance of the job is nothing BUT politics ... only problem is that on the bottom end of the food chain, you're not allowed to chomp on a ceegar. :)
But it really IS about politics and amazingly, doesn't matter what your political inclinations are because the rules are the same no matter WHICH "party" you claim ... that's just the floor show for the rubes. Deep down, matters not. Someone stirs the pot up there, the boot connects with your butt down here. Doesn't ever change either.
Forgot one last connection before I can declare myself done on this - add FEDS, shake liberally and you have a colloidal suspension. There. I'm done now ... conga anyone?
Train Dude probably has a good grip on it, but breaking link bars isn't all that hard to be able to lift a car off its trucks and onto a sawhorse for work once the link's broken. But it would be interesting to see how much of a pain in the butt it is in the shop where you need to work on one car of a pair and then have to layup a perfectly good car eating space while the other car is worked on. Probably sitting there in the shop as well eating space that could be better used for another car in need of work so the two units don't get separated. So you've got a good point here as to capacity ...
Is it a pain in the butt as I would imagine, Mr. Dude? Or do they get shoved off onto an outside track so a diesel motorman gets to play shuffle the car(d)s when one half of a pair is ready to get recoupled and shipped back out? (inquiring mimes knead to no ya no)
2. The problems with the new cars are teething pains, and, with proper oversight by MTA and NYCT, will be ironed out.
Bull! Politics is the real problem. The people in the Cars & Shops Department have promoted people who are incompetant and or have serious conflicts of interests. Ex-TA managers represent Kawasaki & Bombardier on-site which adds to the problems.
From the political angle, one thing that needs to be understood is that the silly rules that have slowed trains, installed WD's, more timers than an olympic gymnastic team and all the other policies that have slowed the railroad, eliminated half-run turnarounds (the 137th Street to South Ferry #1 trains as just ONE example) will not be solved at the TA level. The pressures were exerted from above the MTA.
Politicos are chickenshirts and will always push political subdivisions such as the MTA to take the "easy way out" "path of least resistance" ... apply flame liberally to assemblymen and state senators, kick the governor's ass and you'll see things change. Politicians will always extend an ass-kicking to underlings when their own feet are held to the fire. And the MTA will get on the stick ONLY when they're called before the legislature to explain themselves in a nice all day long and all night long "hearing" on the problem. Get Paturkey's nads in a vise and you'll see those timers ripped out literally overnight and the shunts wired back in.
But as long as it's a polite attendance and a nodding of the head when MTA wigs wag their tongues, nothing will change. The MTA does NOT run the railroad ... take it from me, I worked for the state and there is nothing like TV lights to make them scatter like roaches.
Yeah, all true.
Even if we accept that those nine lines are operating at their maximum possible capacities, what about the rest of the system? I've posted many times that the 1/9 (the local stations; sending locals past them yields empty trains and dangerously crowded platforms) needs double the rush hour service it's currently getting, and the track capacity is there.
Which raises a question.
One way to free up rolling stock on the 1/9, for example, would be to stop every second or third rush hour train at 137th, and use the yard there as the layover before returning south into the business districts. No disrespect to Inwood and Marble Hill further north, but most passengers have left the trains by that point. Travelling, I notice many other systems have certain trains terminate before the end of the line.
Is there a simple reason it isn't done here? Technical constraints? Politics? I apologize if I missed the previous thread that answered this.
You mean that they're no longer using 137th as a terminal? Used to be that 1 out of every three did South Ferry to 137th and relayed south there years ago. If they're not doing that today, it's time for nostalgia again ... and you're right.
[Which raises a question.
One way to free up rolling stock on the 1/9, for example, would be to stop every second or third rush hour train at 137th, and use the yard there as the layover before returning south into the business districts. No disrespect to Inwood and Marble Hill further north, but most passengers have left the trains by that point. Travelling, I notice many other systems have certain trains terminate before the end of the line.
Is there a simple reason it isn't done here? Technical constraints? Politics? I apologize if I missed the previous thread that answered this.]
That's exactly what they used to do, into the 70's. I guess they don't want to spend the money on cars and personnel anymore.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons the 2 and 3 are so overcrowded now. In the days when there was more frequent service on the 1, people used to take it instead of the express.
Politics would certainly enter into this. "Short-ending" trains is not a bad idea, and electronic signs on the trains help. Electronic announcements at the stations could help too, as in "Your next train will arrive in X minutes."
I think the skip-stop service with the 1/9 effectively put and end to the 137th St. short runs, because that would have meant some passengers would have to wait for two trains to go by before they got one that stopped at their station.
[I think the skip-stop service with the 1/9 effectively put and end to the 137th St. short runs, because that would have meant some passengers would have to wait for two trains to go by before they got one that stopped at their station.]
Logical reasoning. I'd just end the skip-stopping altogether, and go back to the way it used to be. 1s should go all the way to 242nd, and the rush hour 9s should stop at 137th. Means more staffing, we know from elsewhere on this thread, but it is worth it until the rolling stock shortage ends.
[Logical reasoning. I'd just end the skip-stopping altogether, and go back to the way it used to be. 1s should go all the way to 242nd, and the rush hour 9s should stop at 137th. Means more staffing, we know from elsewhere on this thread, but it is worth it until the rolling stock shortage ends.]
OTOH, if they kept existing skip-stop frequencies and *added* local service to 137th nobody would be hurt. Also, rush hour direction skip-stops could run on the express track from 137th to 96th, saving four more stops -- that would make up for a slight increase in headway affecting passengers above 137th Street.
[OTOH, if they kept existing skip-stop frequencies and *added* local service to 137th nobody would be hurt. Also, rush hour direction skip-stops could run on the express track from 137th to 96th, saving four more stops -- that would make up for a slight increase in headway affecting passengers above 137th Street.]
Agreed, long-term. I was looking for ways to free up more trains short-term.
[Agreed, long-term. I was looking for ways to free up more trains short-term.]
Then I think you're right -- better to eliminate skip stop.
Another reason I think they got rid of the 137th St. turnaround -- until then, they ran 8 car trains on the local tracks to get a higher frequency. And of course that takes more train crews.
That's exactly what I proposed a few months ago on nyc.transit.
Through peak-direction trains to 242nd would run express on the center track, as on the 6 in the Bronx and, formerly, on the F in Brooklyn.
All stations would see service at least comparable to current service since twice as many trains would be running, half to 242nd and half to 137th. A few people would be disadvantaged; many more would have emptier trains and/or quicker rides. Consider origin-destination pairs in the morning rush hour, where zone A is north of 137th, zone B is between 137th and 96th, and zone C is south of 96th:A-A: no change from the present.
A-B: change of trains necessary.
A-C: same headways as the present, but a quicker (express between 137th and 96th) and less crowded ride.
B-A: same headways as the present (just ignore the short-turning trains), but a less crowded ride.
B-B: southbound, same headways as the present, but a less crowded ride and a near-guarantee of a seat; northbound, half the current headways and smaller crowds.
B-C: same headways as the present, but a less crowded ride and a near-guarantee of a seat.
C-A: same headways as the present, but a less crowded ride.
C-B: half the current headways and smaller crowds.
C-C: half the current headways and smaller crowds.
A-A sees no change and A-B loses out, but everyone else gains.
Now, what are the predominant travel patterns? Obviously, travel from everywhere to zone C is the most common, and everyone benefits, at the very least by reduced crowding and in most cases by either shorter waits or quicker rides. What about the sticky point, commutes to zone B? The largest destination there is Columbia, and I'd guess that most of the commuters to Columbia are coming from the south -- and they similarly benefit by the increased service, since the expresses are bypassing their station in the opposite direction.
Why doesn't the TA implement this? Probably because the overcrowding problems elsewhere in the system are of a different nature. Look at the E/F vs. the G/R in Queens, or the Q vs. the D in Brooklyn: most of the ridership is staying on for the long haul and prefers the express so the ride doesn't take all year. An appropriate response to crowded and behind-schedule locals in those cases is to skip local stops to get back on schedule. With the 2/3 vs. the 1/9, the situation is very different: the busiest stations are not way up in the Bronx; rather, they're local stops smack dab in Manhattan! Given the much shorter headways and the fast ride on the 2/3, most riders to northern Manhattan and the Bronx are probably on the express, and the ones who need the 1/9 transfer back at 96th. The crowds on the local are of people trying to get to the local stations themselves. Yet the TA reacts in its usual fashion by running close to half the rush hour locals as expresses! If you ever want a seat on a train at the height of rush hour, ride one of those not-quite-locals -- they're practically empty. (Don't bother listening for announcements -- if they're made at all, they're probably made either on the platform or on the train but not both.) Where are those crowds? Why, on the platforms -- specifically, the busy platform at 42nd and the narrow platform at 72nd. And each express that comes by dumps even more people onto the platform.
I've managed to avoid the maddening 1/9 commute for a while, but a few weeks ago, due to poor timing, I had to get from 34th to 86th at about 5:15pm. Should be simple, yes? So, I arrive at the express platform at 34th. Immediately, I see a 1 approaching on the local track. Mad dash downstairs, across, upstairs, towards the station exit thanks to a misleading sign, back around to the platform -- just made it. Next stop, 42nd. We sit. And wait. And wait. Somebody's muttering something on the platform PA but none of us can hear it. A 3 pulls in across the platform; we can make out a mention that a 3's pulling in (duh) but everything else is gibberish. Fine, I'll take the crowded 3 -- at least it's going somewhere. Okay, onto the last car of the 3, which isn't terribly crowded except that someone decided to block access to the center of the car with his bike. Quick ride to 72nd; no, no locals passed, so that 1 wasn't held up by congestion. The 3 takes off. A 2 goes by. Another 3 comes through. Two guys get off and express dismay that they're only at 72nd and they need to get to 81st (this was that rainy Wednesday two weeks ago); a few of us tell them that the local will take them to 79th. As the next 2 pulls in, the 1 finally arrives. No announcements that I can hear, since this time they apparently made them only in the train, but it's obviously running express. (Interesting, no? First it's held at 42nd; then it has to run express to make up time.) I inform the two guys, oblivious to all of this, to wait for the next train. And, indeed, even before the 1 pulls out, I see a 9 waiting just outside the station. (Interesting, no? Even with the 1 running express, the 9 is still delayed behind it. Could it possibly cost more time to get local passengers off your train than to simply make the local stops?) The 9 arrives and swallows up the crowd on the platform. And then, to add insult to injury, we're held in the station (I thought that was a strict rush hour no-no) for the arriving 3 train! That's right, the local passenger load off of at least five express trains and two locals (one running express) are all crammed onto a single train now. And then the glacial ride out of 72nd begins.
TA insiders, is my analysis incorrect? Now that new cars are arriving, what are the chances they'll be used to improve service to humans rather than to fish?
Well, it's been clear for years that most mainstream media outlets just don't "get" transit-related issues. Looks like we've got another example here. I haven't seen the article, but it sounds like it more or less parrots the MTA's line.
I say the J cannot be the worst subway line in the subway. First off, Alot of Motorman like it because it is the only Letter that is outside that long. Its kinda like the B Divisions version of the 7. Plus for those who live in Southern Queens and need to Get to Far Rockaway or Northern brooklyn like me who is a tour guide. Anyway its good for getting me to the A Train and it can do that faster than the E. An d sometimes to get to lower Manhattan, the J can be very useful. Also, I say the worst subway line in the Subway is the L. Its not that fun to ride on, the basic makeup of the line is boring. If I avoid riding any subway line, and when I become a Motorman if I could avoild running any line, it would definately be the L
>>>>>......and when I become a Motorman if I could avoild running any line, it would definately be the L<<<<<
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that's cause ye don't know the timers me lad. Whens ye post on the road, don't farget ye depends lad.
You forget the L has a number of interesting sharp curves as it runs through Williamsburg and Bushwick. I do think that the line gets more interesting as it goes through B'way Junction and out to Rockaway Parkway.
The Sea Beach (N train) on the other hand is a drag to me, since almost all of it is a straight cut after some 'Plan Jane' subway running. Not all that interesting outside of the partial shared ROW with the LIRR Bay Ridge Line over by 65th Street, that runs along side it for a few stops.
BMTman
The Brooklyn part of the N might be boring, but the ride from 59th St to Queensboro Plaza is quite interesting, almost the rollercoaster as it climbs out of the tunnel.
It also can be the most boring on earth if they have a GO slow in the tunnel. I used to live by Broadway in the mid 1980-s and it took the MTA years to rehabilitate the tunnel.
John.
Glad Fred is in NYC this weekend so he cant read the bad press on the Slow Beach/ BTW who went with Fred?
Bob, see Gary Wengeroff's related thread. It is a capsulated version of the trip.
I will send Dave P. some pics on the trip, hopefully tomorrow.
BMTman
If he still isn't on Greenwich time...
You have carte blanche to run down my Sea Beach all you want to now. I saw you face to face. You're a good guy and I can see you have a real zest for living. I was thrilled you showed up, and if you read me well, then you know I had a blast of a time. If most of the Subtalkers are like our group yesterday we have one hell of a roster of classy people. Tell Stef that I'm not such a big A-hole after all. I even toured the North Bronx and came out of alive. How about that? Have a great day.
PS---You also saved the day when you lead us to the latrine. The whole pack of us were bursting at the seams---if you know what I mean. I look forward to my next trip to New York. Thanks Doug.
I actually like the open cut of the Sea Beach, even if it just just straight-a-way. It makes it feel more like a real railroad than a rapid transit line. Still, it ain't no Brighton ;)
Alas, I overslept yesterday and missed what must have been an incredible time. Fred - I hope you can make it back east sometime soon :).
Alas, I overslept yesterday and missed what must have been an incredible time. Fred - I hope you can make it back east sometime soon :).
Ditto for me. Although getting to Times Square on a Sunday is a pain in the ass considering I have no car currently.
It seems that JOEKORNERS website has benn hacked see it HERE before joe fixes it.
Peace.
ANDEE
ps- I had NOTHING to do with it
Whats the date today ?
Simon
Swindon UK
YES I know, but whadya gonna do
This one was self-hacked I think. I thought it was pretty good!
Joe sent me an email this morning when he put it up. Check the calendar ... Korman's a sick pup and I'm proud of him. :)
Text was as follows:
NOTHING
http://www.thejoekorner.com/index.html
Don't visit!
It's boring!
http://www.thejoekorner.com/index.html
Wait till next month.
--
No Sig File
Just as I thought. Everybody forgot that today is APRIL FOOL'S DAY!!!
The joke was on us...but it was a good one.
BMTman
Selkirk,
Was question No. 4 directed at you? :D
Heh. No comment. :)
Sounds like a guilty plea to me.....:-O
BMTman
That would be "no lo ncontendre" ... but I dropped dime on myself in a subsequent message. Old rule of state service - if it doesn't leave the property, then it wasn't really stolen. :)
It's boring BUT FUNNY LIKE ALL THE TEXET IS SCREWED UP
That was his intent ... for anyone who missed it, Joe's still got it squirreled away off his main pages at:
http://www.thejoekorner.com/index.html
And as to test question #4, while I didn't put the train back, I did leave it where it could be found. Joe invited me when he put that up and apparently needed to bust my chops about taking a train once. Without an assignment. But I've gotten better now - I always leave a note when I steal a train these days. :)
Hope you enjoyed the hacking ;-)
Priceless ... especially the reversed letters up top. And in answer to question #4, alas with police cars closing, had to dump the train and leave it ... but I'm sure they found it. :)
A TV commercial for the upcoming movie "Along Came a Spider" has scenes filmed in the Baltimore Metro Subway system. First, you see a train exiting the Carlin's Park portal north of Mondawmin; then, the star (Danny Glover?) is seen standing on the concrete walkway between the tracks in the section between Old Court and Owings Mills (median of Interstate 795). Glover (?) is next seen inside a train, holding a handgun. The camera distorts the dimensions of the train somewhat, so that our BMT-like car looks more like an IRT. (And there's nothing wrong with my TV!)
Today's field trip went smoothly and as planned (except for almost not finding Fred at the hotel). We had ten people in the group: Fred, John (Qtraindash7), Doug (BMTman), Dan (danilm), Bill "Newkirk", Thurston, Victor (VictorM), Jeff (BMTJeff), Rosanne (my wife), and me. Thurston gave us a quick tour around the TS shuttle area. We left TS on a SB N (R32) about 10:30,and got off at Canal St. We investigated the bridge station and exited the complex onto Centre St. We then stopped briefly at a restaurant where a few of us had roast pork buns. We then continued on Canal St. to the Manhattan Bridge and took a quick look at the bridge, followed by the walk up to the Grand St. station. This gave a clear picture of how far apart the Canal and Grand St. stations are. We took a D(R68) to DeKalb and switched back to an N((R68?) for the ride to Stillwell. We had lunch at Nathan's and walked by the new Brooklyn Cyclone ballpark. On looking back, someone noticed that the Cyclone was running, and so that became our next stop as Fred, Jeff, and I took the coaster. We then went to the B&B Carousel. Jeff, Dan, and Rosanne were the ones who went in circles. We left CI on an F(R46?) train to the highest station in the system, Smith/9th St. where we were able to see the Statue of Liberty. We then boarded a G(R46) to its last stop, Court Square, where we walked the long passageway for the transfer. It's quite different than being able to transfer across the platform at Queens Plaza. Instead of taking the QB line, we exited and transfered to the 7 after noting that the two stations could easily be connected for a free transfer.We took a WF Redbird to 74th St. and walked Fred down to the Q33 which took him to LaGuardia for his flight home. Thanks to everyone there today.
Glad it was a good trip. How did Fred Behave on the N Train and the Coaster. He was excited when we had dinner in LA 2 weeks ago, Wish i could have gone, but just got home from Hawaii on Friday, and still recuperating. Damn Long Trip
He was predictably excited on both. The three of us that went on the Cyclone were thrilled to see it running. Fred asked the guy who was sitting alone in the front seat (with his friend behind him) if he could join him in the front. He did, and Jeff and I sat in the third row.
Gary Wengeroff:
After I paid #4 Sea Beach Fred goodbye and relieving myself I went back on the #7 to Flushing and took some pictures of the Main St. Flushing station which was renovated since I was last there in 1994. It used be a pain in the neck station because you couldn't get around the on the platform very well at the time but now it is much better. Then I took the #7 back to 74th St. and changed to an E train which consisted of R-46s and rode it to 53rd St. and 7th Ave. in Manhattan. Then I went to the Central Park Carousel and took a ride on that one also. Then I walked back to Grand Central and took the 5:20 Hudson Line local back home to Hastings-on-Hudson.
BMTJeff
Glsd to finally meet up with you. I can tell you this. You're a big kid just like me. I saw you on the Carousel and you had thet time of your life. You also rode the Cyclone, and that makes you a blood brother. Take my word for it, there is no other ride like it in the world. At least I haven;t come across one, and rode on many of them. I hope you enjoyed our outing as much as I did. Have a great week.
I certainly had fun on the carousel. I still think it is the best carousel I've ever ridden and it is one of the very few carousels that still has a ring chute so a rider who is riding on an outside row horse can try to go for the ring. The organ on the B&B Carousell has a very nice sound to it. When it is at its best it has a deep mellow sound in the bass and the mid-range and as you reach the treble which is the melody section of the organ it is almost bird like or whistle like in its tone. The are probably very few organs like it remaining.
BMTJeff
To make Fred's day, I presented him a photo, from my 1994 subway calendar. It was the July image of what else, D-Types on the Sea Beach on a June 22, 1975 fantrip. After lunch at Nathan's at Fred's request, we all autographed the photo. Fred said he would have it framed when he returns to the west coast.
When Doug BMTman posts the pictures he took today, they featured various group shots. To make it interesting, I brought along an R-16 front route roll sign. When we posed for a group shot in front of Stillwell, had it showing 4-SEA BEACH. That made Fred's day, one shot we had the sign 1-BRIGHTON to break Fred's shoes ! Fred loved it all, as we all did.
Bill "Newkirk"
I had assumed that if you were with us on the trip you probably would bring something. You've never been known to show up on a field trip without some type of sign or picture. The picture was particularly nice in that it gives Fred something to remember the with.
BTW - My thanks to you for being an excellant tour guide. I was wondering when Doug BMTman got on Pacific St, what would have happened if he was positioned at either the 5th or 8th car ?
If we rode a R-40 slant to Coney Island, we all would have had bad backs !
Bill "Newkirk"
Hey Bill, the way that you held that route sign in the photos, if "The Price is Right" ever hires male models, you'd be a shoo in.
"Hey Bill, the way that you held that route sign in the photos, if "The Price is Right" ever hires male models, you'd be a shoo in."
Zman,
The Price is Right couldn't afford to pay me !! HAR HAR HAR HAR !!!
Bill "Newkirk"
So then "The Price is Wrong"?
Have Carol Merrill hold the sign.:-)
Or perhaps Vanna White.
Bill & I almost thought Fred was playing a April Fools joke on us as by 10:15 it was just three of us hanging around at Times Square.
The trip was very enjoyable for me as well. The tourist walk along Canal Street & view of the Manhattan Bridge from above ground were an added treat.
I'll add my two cents worth:
- The new OPENess at Times Square is very nice (you can look over & see the N pulling into the station.
- The way Fred's face lit up when he saw that the roller coaster was running is something I'll remember for a long time.
- The sight of us all around a table at Nathan's was another of those moments, as was Jeff, & Dan going for the Brass Ring.
- Doug & I took a different return route out of Coney Island (he going back to Canarsie, me catching the LIRR at Atlantic Ave). We went up on the IRT platform at Atlantic Ave and saw the construction going on. A lot of MOW equipment there too (engine, rider car, flats, etc.)
It was another very pleasent railfan experience, sorry more of you didn't join us. Thanks to Gary for all the thought that went into making this a great Field Trip.
Mr t__:^)
And thank you Gary for doing this. Needless to say, if you saw the look on my face yesterday you know for a fact that I had a real blast. Wow!!!!! And my former adversary, now buddy, BMT Doug showed up. That was great. What a great group of guys, and can you believe it, Big Bill Newkirk gave me that color Sea Beach photo, and Thurston that Mets cap. You can take it to the bank, no one will put their grubby fingers on either mimento, I can tell you that. And I'll cherish them both. More than that, however, I will appreciate you guys showing up and making this such an enjoyable experience. Give Rosanne a big hug for me, will you? She was a real trooper out there. I owe you a big one Gary. You've made a friend for life.
I'm just glad you had a good time and look foward to your next trip east whenever it may be.
I know that this site focuses mainly on rail transit systems and
railroads, but would rollercoasters be considered on-topic or
off-topic in SubTalk? Because technically speaking, rollercoasters
are "railways", even though they don't get you from point A to point
B. The reason I ask this is because when Coney Island's Thunderbolt
was demolished back in November, there was a thread about it here in
SubTalk. I'm just wondering if an occasional rollercoaster related
threat in SubTalk would be accepted, since I'm both a transit and
rollercoaster fan. Also, many old amusement parks were "trolley
parks".
I love roller coasters, also, but I think they are a little off topic.
More than a little off-topic.
Oh come on! They are more on-topic than a lot of the stuff we talk about. I would love to discuss some threads about ride overcrowding (2 hour+ lines) and ways to increase capacity (automatic block signaling!)
Well they are more on topic than the numerous political/sports/movie threads that seem to abound here.
Peace,
ANDEE
Maybe it's time to start...
Rollercoastertalk!!!!
heypauls ELEVATORTALK would not consider rollercoasters off topic.
Peace,
ANDEE
heypauls ELEVATORTALK would not consider anything off topic.
No, there is no need to.
There are already NUMEROUS roller coaster sites out there, and a few of them have chat boards, message boards, etc.
http://www.ultimaterollercoaster.com
http://www.rcdb.com
http://www.coasterbuzz.com
http://www.geocities.com/robbalvey
http://themeparkguide.danimation.com
There's a few sites to get y'all started. Go from there!!!
(I admit, yes, I AM a roller coaster nut. More nut than anything though.)
Personally, I think they should have made a transfer between the Coney Island rollercoasters and the B,D,F, and N at Stillwell.
;-D Andrew
I think it was on the Forgotten New York site that I saw some reprinted articles from the early 20th century describing what we know as roller coasters at Coney Island. Only they didn't call them "roller coasters" - they consistently called them "scenic railways"!
ANyone know when the term "roller coaster" came into common use?
According to this ARTICLE (SCROLL DOWN) they were still being called "scenic railways" until at at least 1925.
Peace,
ANDEE
Yep, I concur with that info. I just found a GREAT book on roller coasters, perhaps if anyone was interested, you might want to look for:
The American Roller Coaster by Scott Rutherford -- published by MBI Publishing Company. http://www.motorbooks.com
It's 160 pages, lots of excellent b&w and color illustrations, and lots of very informative text. I paid $29.95 for it (list price).
Yes, I think that is the same article I saw.
>>> I saw some reprinted articles from the early 20th century describing what we know as roller coasters at Coney Island. Only they didn't call them "roller coasters" - they consistently called them "scenic railways"! <<<
I think the term "scenic railway" was used to describe a gentler longer ride which was a predecessor to the roller coaster in America. Once the Cyclone was built in 1927, it was clear that the term "scenic railway" was not really descriptive of that ride.
I remember seeing a ride which might be described as a scenic railway at Coney Island in 1951 or 1952 from a train between Stilwell and 8th St. The start and finish of the ride was on Surf Avenue, and it ran under the El tracks to the North side of the El where there was an extensive track. None of the turns seemed as tight as the Cyclone's turns, and the hills and drops were not as severe, but it was a much longer ride. I really wanted to take a ride on that attraction, but when I returned in 1955 with enough money in my pocket to ride, it was gone. Does anyone else remember that ride and its name?
Here is a good site on the History of Rollercoasters. Here is another site.
Tom
I think the term "scenic railway" was used to describe a gentler longer ride which was a predecessor to the roller coaster in America. Once the Cyclone was built in 1927, it was clear that the term "scenic railway" was not really descriptive of that ride.
My fuzzy memories of Willow Grove Park include the Thunderbolt (roller coaster) and The Alps (scenic railway). There was also a kiddie coaster called the Jackrabbit.
I suppose technically Roller Coasters are off topic on this website, but why would some of you care a lick anyway? We've brought up all sorts of subjects on this line, and it has led to some nice exchanges between us. For me, the Sea Beach and the Cyclone are synonomous. Whenever I'm in Brooklyn and riding my favorite train I automatically think of Coney Island because that's where I'm going. And if I'm going there you can be sure that if the Cyclone is open, brother I', riding it. So for me the subway and roller coaster are synonomous. I'd like to get some more of your take on this. Does anyone out there share the same feelings?
hey Fred are you home yet?
Yes, I got home real late on Sunday night----or was it Monday morning?
I had a hell of a time there, made some new friends and now me and BMT Doug are buddies. It was a hell of an experience, I can tell you that. And yes, I did ride the Cyclone, front seat and all. It was a great three day vacation. I hope to go to New York again this summer/ Maybe we can touch base then.
Glad to hear you and Doug are friends. I've met him, too; he's a good man. You know, it's a shame in a way that BX55 couldn't be there. We haven't heard from her lately.
I think I made peace with her some time back. I've got to work on Stef and Subwaysurf and then my slate is clear.
I share the same feeling you do about the "Cyclone". Whenever I'm out in Coney Island I've got to ride the "Cyclone" provided that it is open. There is probably no other roller coaster like it in the world. Now if they want to make Coney Island even better they've got to build a reproduction of the "Thunderbolt" roller coaster. If they do that that can attract many people to Coney Island once again. I would also build an accurate reproduction of an old time Coney Island carousel and put an organ on it just like the one on the B&B Carousell and you've got to have a ring machine on the carousel as well. There would help to bring back Coney Island to some semblance of what it used to be.
BMTJeff
That "another site" is quite out of date....their last timeline entry is "Superman" at Magic Mountain in 1997....since then coasters have hit the 300 foot mark in the USA and even taller in Japan (I think somewhere around 358 feet if I'm not mistaken....now THAT'S a helluva drop!!)
I think that ride you mentioned was called "The World's Longest Ride" and I remember seeing it from an el train in 1948, but I never rode it.
An "active adult community" is under construction adjacent to the site of the Delanco station; developer says the light rail station was a significant factor in the location decision. Story in Sunday Inkie.
This confirms what we've known all along: transit development makes good economic sense. It's just another example of that, along with HBLR, the 63rd St line (and its effects on Roosevelt Island and the Queens waterfront), Archer Av (and what it triggered in Jamaica), Atlanta MARTA's effect on downtown Atlanta's development, etc. etc.
Maybe now the NIMBYs will finally shut up and let the project go on.
I hate NIMBYs. Yes, I hope they shut up forever.
I just got back home. I had a great time today!!
I was worried about running late, since there were bus delays. But since I had a fast driver and a 300 series Orion the ride was fast.
The speeds the bus got to were amazing (I'd say near 60 in that stretch between Little Neck and Bayside. Traffic was light.
Managed to show up at Times Square early, just before 9:30am.
Most everybody else came 10 or after.
We were lucky, our first ride was on an R32 N train. Due to ongoing construction, all downtown service was on the express. Unfortunately there was an R in front of us.
We got off at Canal and walked through the bridge station. There was some flooding there.
We then walked from Centre St. to Grand street with a stop at a chinese food place for roast pork buns (I didn't have any, it would spoil my appetite for Nathan's). It is a somewhat long walk from Centre to Grand, it definely will inconvenience many that use the Grand St. station when the "flip" happens. At least running the M 24/7 to Brooklyn would help the problem, since the Bowery station is alot closer. Chinatown had other treats as well (mystical girls).
At Grand St we boarded a lumbering Hippo D train as it crawled to Dekalb, where we got off for an N that came a moment later. Too bad, that was a Hippo also. The R68 ride was, well, slow. At least the Sea Beach line looked nice.
We took it to Coney Island and did some photo-ops, then Nathans.
Nathan's was great, they do have some of the best burgers and fries in NYC.
After Nathan's we walked around C.I. abit, those of us who were brave enough rode the cyclone (no, not me!)
Then later an R46 F train up to Smith-9th. That R46 sure felt fast compared to that R68 we were on earlier.
At Smith-9th we got a G train, which came immediately. The R46 quickly got crowded and I can see why G riders are upset at the proposal to cut it back permanently to Court Square. The G was actually reasonably fast, and so was the tunnel under Newtown Creek, we got up to 45mph in there.
The passageway to E/F is too long, and I can see now the MTA has to find a way to keep the G on Queens Blvd. Between not coming up with better plans for Chinatown and G train riders, it is in my opinion the MTA does slight poorer minority areas to increase service for wealther ones (the new V train benefits Forest Hills-Kew Gardens riders the most).
We later took a 7 train from 45-Courthouse. The Redbird wreaked of oil from that leak in the Steinway tubes. Sure can't wait for summer!
Everybody who was left got off at 74th. I stayed on my trusty 7 train which ran smoothly (as always) to Main street where I boarded the N21 bus back home.
I had a great time today, and it was very nice meeting all of you once again, and for Sea Beach Fred, we won't shut up until your N train is back on the bridge, not bogged down in the bowels of Manhattan with the (R)arely!
Sea Beach is a wonderful line, it is high time the MTA stop neglecting it.
BTW I have an additional email address: Qtraindash7@aol.com
AOL came with my computer for a year
Nice meeting you John as well as the others who took Sea Beach Fred on the town !
Bill "Newkirk"
And Bill it was great to see you. I love that picture you gave me, and my wife will be going out this afternoon to match the picture with a frame---and it will hang in a very conspicuous place where eveyone can eyeball it. Hope you had a great time because I sure did. It was great weekend for me all around, and I did NOT get upset when we took that picture with the Brighton roll sign paraded in front. Besides, I think I was outnumbered by the Brighton people in my group. Anyway, I'm glad you could come. It was a great day for me, and I hope for you.
Your pal Sea Beach Fred
[Your pal Sea Beach Fred]
Well, lets take a vote ... is it a good thing that Fred is our pal now? .... Fred I can S-E-E you smiling !
Your pal Mr t__:^)
Hey Thurston have you seen Dougs excellent picture?
Peace,
ANDEE
Thurston, you're a gentlemen and a scholar, and you have made a friend whether you want it or not. I'm now wearing that cap you gave me and it looks great. Blue cap with orange brim and orange lettering. Just classy. I hope you enjoyed yesterday's outing as much as I did. I can't stop talking about it and probably will drive this website nuts with my posts on the subject, but I really am looking forward to doing this again and again in the future. I have your card and I will keep in touch. Have a great week.
Good of you to come. I enjoyed your company and hope to had a safe return to your North LI digs. I had a blast. I was very impressed with our group. A diverse, yet classy bunch. Maybe if enough of us play to the gallery, the TA will finally give the Sea Beach a break and stop neglecting it. Thanks for your support yesterday. It made my day.
And have fun in London.
This is not a gripe: more constructive criticism.
Write 1000 times: “I will not install a software upgrade immediately before I go on vacation. This tempts the software gods too much!”
How do I know? BTDT.
John.
Today, at about 11:30 am, I was taking a D train across the bridge to Brookly, and I noticed something extraordinary on the south side: A TRAIN!! It consisted of a diesel locomotive, a former subway car and a couple of flatcars. It was in the middle of the bridge, but a bit closer to Brooklyn. The whole east side of the bridge was full of MTA people. It is quite a surprise to see that they are actually doing something for once.
I saw it too! I thought I was going nuts! I went by around 5pm. The work train was still there and there were about 15 MTA people walking around and/or sitting down doing nothing really.
Well, it didn't land in the East River, so that's a step in the right direction :-)
Actually, the H tracks were turned over to the TA as of March 14th for use by work trains. Regular service should begin July 1 with the A/B tracks in use for work trains and transfers through July 31. The A/B tracks close August 1.
Why not run service on both sides of the bridge from now until August 1? Gradually ease in the W and the Broadway Q, and begin terminating some B's and D's at 34th.
How are you going to run service? Waste all that money printing flyers and giving OT to RTO folks. The next pick has the new Broadway service in it. If you were to start service now, how would you pay for it?
I don't know, I'm just tossing out a vague idea. Forget the flyers -- just reroute a few trains. Get people used to the Q on Broadway and to the W at all. It probably wouldn't be workable but, if it is, it might ease the pain come July 1. Or it might not.
I'm going to love the looks on tourists' faces when instead of City Hall they see the east river after Canal. At least they won't get lost at DeKalb or Pacific, all northbound trains (M excepted) go back to Broadway.
>>I'm going to love the looks on tourists' faces when instead of City Hall they see the east river after Canal. At least they won't get lost at DeKalb or Pacific, all northbound trains (M excepted) go back to Broadway.<<
The tourists always look like that.
It's the regular commuters who i'll get a kick out of!
Aren't tourists allowed to just get on a random train and let it take them wherever, get off when hungry and have a look around?
I remember doing that in NY a while ago.
Okay, okay, I guess I'm putting the cart before the horse. There's no way this would work without fixing the PA systems first.
Tourists can be annoying and stupid, since they often are confused and really don't care if they block stairways, train doors, and turnstyles.
Tourists can be the most inconsiderate people I run into in the city, blocking sidewalks and storefronts. Only tourists I don't mind encountering are railfans since they know how to use the system! :-)
Part of the reason I like Chinatown east of Bowery (especially E.Broadway), it's the area tourists don't frequent, just lots of mystical girls.
---Qtraindash7----is also at aol.com----->
The H tracks are not ready for revenue service. No 3rd rail power and no signals. How would you propose that we run service - horse-drawn carts?
It appears the signals are on from I could see on the A/B tracks.
It appears the signals are on from I could see from the A/B tracks.
>>>this was corrected due to a typo, which is a direct result of low
TLC for this lonely train<<<
They've always been on. I never could understand why.
Well, that would be a good race -- Horse-drawn cart on the south side vs. an R-68 B train on the north side. Wonder what odds OTB would have? :-)
My bets are with the horse-drawn cart.
Horses are faster than hippos.
I'll go with the R-68. No horse in it's right mind would cross the bridge at the same time as one of them heavy Hippos.
Try a Triplex instead of a horse. It would crush an R-68.
Oh my aching deck!
I didn't see you on my trip. Wish you could have joined us. But I did get word the Sea Beach will NOT be using the bridge when the switchover takes place July 1. Tell your friends at the MTA that Sea Beach Fred in California is really pissed off about it. I'm sure they'll be impressed like "Hey Dude, who the hell is Sea Beach Fred?"
"But I did get word the Sea Beach will NOT be using the bridge when the switchover takes place July 1."
Aaaawwwwwwwww.
N Broadway Local
Since some managers monitor this site, they likely know who sea beach fred is. I'm sorry that we didn't hook up either but the crazies have hit the bronx. 3 months to go and all of a sudden my bosses figured we better get set for the Flip service. So much to do and so little time. Safe trip back
I didn't see you on my trip. Wish you could have joined us. But I did get word the Sea Beach will NOT be using the bridge when the switchover takes place July 1. Tell your friends at the MTA that Sea Beach Fred in California is really pissed off about it. I'm sure they'll be impressed like "Hey Dude, who the hell is Sea Beach Fred?"
Is it safe to assume that all the third rails have been energized from the Manhattan Bridge through Canal St. station ?
Bill "Newkirk"
Better safe than sorry. Assume that they are live all the time. The work trains do not need an electrified rail, so it might not be.
When does School Car get a crack at it??
Someone has to make up the punch signs for Canal so Dekalb knows what is coming over, there wan't a W 11 years ago. I assume they are punching a Canal, might they punch somewhere before that?
[It consisted of a diesel locomotive, a former subway car and a couple of flatcars.]
If it was a former subway car, what is it now? A few of tons of scrap metal?
Maybe it should have been a BMT standard. After all, they opened subway service on those every same bridge tracks in 1915.
I'm another witness. Decided to take the 'D' from Brooklyn back to Manhattan, but sat on the outside, first to cop a view of the remnants of Myrtle Avenue station and the mass-transitscope (hard to see much of anything) and then for the view of the river and Willy-B. Only glanced over at the last second to see the work train and crew. This musta been about 3pm or so. Wish I'd been on the inside of the R-68 that time!
Also saw an upside-down (half-turned, I guess) diamond 'W' route designator on an R-40 Slant which was laying up in 42nd Street waiting to return to Stillwell (this was on the way to Brooklyn earlier in the day).
Greetings! Since know some of you visit Chicago-L.org regularly, I thought you might be interested in an important situation with the site. If you do not, I am terribly sorry for clogging the message board, as I am not a believer in "spamming" people...
If you have tried to access Chicago-L.org in last few days, you may have noticed that the site is not coming up and seems to unavailable. Rest assured, I have *NOT* closed Chicago-L.org. As a matter of fact, I have updates that are waiting in the wings to be added to the site.
What has occurred has to do with my internet service provider (ISP) and, unfortunately, there's nothing I can do personally to rectify it. Chicago-L.org is hosted by an organization/server called chinet.com. The DSL service that Chinet used to connect their server to the web, Chicagolands Northpoint DSL, went bankrupt (!). Obviously, if a company is bankrupt, it can't pay its bills and AT&T cut off most Northpoint customers Thursday night (3/29/01) at 2030 hours. Chicago-L.org (and chinet.com) has been off-line since then.
Chinet.com has ordered a new T1 with AtWork. They've promised Chinet it will be operational within 21 days, as of 3/27. Hopefully that will be the case. Unfortunately, I sort of just have to just sit and wait. Rest assured, the administrators of chinet.com are doing everything they can. Hopefully, this will be short-term. I do not wish to frustrate or lose visitors to Chicago-L.org, so please be patient. Thanks for your understanding.
Regards,
Graham Garfield
http://Chicago-L.org
My DSL service at home is also provided by Northpoint but it has remained up so far. Although my ISP is scrambling to provide alternate means of connectivity. (Note: This doesn't affect the server for www.nycsubway.org but it will affect the (pretty useless) Subtalk archives.)
A friend's workplace lost their Northpoint DSL service with no warning last Thursday. They are still scrambling to find a new DSL service quickly as the loss is crimping their engineering business. Apparently Northpoint went Chapter 7 and didn' warn anybody. ISP's all over the country are affected.
However there were already reports about the company faltering. One only had to see the writing on the wall.
Of course, I was supposed to get Northpoint DSL. The dumbass installer connected the line to the wrong box, and then the ISP said I have a bridge tap on the line (totally untrue for various reasons). But the ISP is giving me 6 free months of dial-up in addition to the 3 I got awaiting installation, and I haven't paid them a single cent yet (and my one-year contract has been suspended, yet they haven't sent out for me to return the modem yet).
AT&T bought up much of NorthPoint's infrastructure but not its customers. So as AT&T takes this stuff over, service to affected customers is simply being turned off, often without warning.
--mark
AT&T bought up much of NorthPoint's infrastructure but not its customers. So as AT&T takes this stuff over, service to affected customers is simply being turned off, often without warning.
AT&T purchased much of the infrastructure but not the DSL portion of it, since they did not want the customers (unprofitable, and the source of NorthPoint's financial problems). NorthPoint - not AT&T - is turning off the customers as their remaining funds run out.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Thanks for the reassurance. I haven't visited the site in many months, but by coincidence I tried to go there a few days ago, through a link from David Cole's site, and I was most disappointed. Now I know to keep trying.
Thanks for the understanding, all! I have been talking to various friends and apparnetly several DSL companies went belly-up in the last couple weeks, with a lot of Northern Illinois (among other places) affected. Of course, that doesn't help get Chicago-L.org up any faster, but at least I'm not alone!
Hopefully I'll be back up within a week or so.
Graham Garfield
http://Chicago-L.org
An update on Chicago-L.org's status, for those that are interested:
As of Thursday April 5th, Chinet (Chicago-L.org's host server) will receive its new T1 connection on April 16, 2001. As a result, chinet.com and Chicago-L.org will (tentatively) be back on-line on Tuesday, April 17th. Yeah, it's a little over a week away still, but at least we know have a date to work with!
Regards,
Graham Garfield
http://Chicago-L.org
April 17, eh? Well, good-oh! Going into severe withdrawal symptoms, I was. In the meantime, I suppose I'll just have to wile away the weary hours with SubTalk and Belgian Trappist ales, faute de mieux.
The near-simultaneous crashes of Chicago-L.org and SubTalk do create a rather scary picture, though. Simple prudence seems to demand the establishment of some additional backup transit sites; frex, FenelonPlaceElevatorTalk, or www.kathmandu_trolleybus.com.
Alan Follett
>April 17, eh? Well, good-oh! Going into severe withdrawal symptoms...
Well, it's good to know that people care!!
Yes, I have to admit: this whole incident has caused me to give serious consideration to the creation of a mirror site in case this happens again. We'll see what happens, though. It's tough to find affordable web space when your site is over 200MB!!!
Graham Garfield
http://Chicago-L.org
As of about 4:30pm today (Friday, April 20th), Chicago-L.org is back on-line! We have weathered the storm!
The site was originally tentatively scheduled to come back on-line around the 16th, but that obviously didn't happen. Chinet.com had to order a new T1 connection to get their server back on-line. The new router and T1 box for Chinet were installed on schedule on the 16th, but Ameritech had been saying they have a broken wire somewhere for about four days. So, then I had to wait for Ameritech to get its act together.
There will be an update of material that's been in holding tonight around 8pm CDT or so. A second wave of updates will follow this weekend. And, of course, regular updates will follow as usual.
Thanks to everyone who emailed me and showed concern for the site being down. It is nice to know that the support is out there. I am looking into setting up a mirror so that this does *not* happen again.
Again, thanks to everyone for their support and concern!
Regards,
Graham Garfield
http://Chicago-L.org
And welcome back! I expect to hear that during the lacuna the West Chicago and Waukegan extensions were completed and placed into service, to universal acclaim!
Alan Follett
Well, it looks like I jumped the gun a bit. Chicago-L.org is indeed back up, but those of you who went to look for the promised 8pm CDT updates last night were unfortunately disappointed. Apparently, the server is back up, but something is not fully operational because I can't FTP in reliably. This probably just hasn't been re-setup yet. I will update as soon as possible. Thanks for everyone's patience.
Graham
http://Chicago-L.org
Coming back Sunday from the Jersey Shore, I noticed the near-completion of the Newark Airport Station between Elizabeth and Newark-Penn Stations.
I noted the terminus of the monorail onan adjacent ROW.
Asked a conductor when it would be opening -- "end of the year" -- but he was worried about new ridership. NJT may run a NY-Penn to Rahway shuttle to handle the extra volume of passengers with big bags.
My question is -- why couldn't the PATH be extended from Newark-Penn to the Airport? This would seem to be a nice cheap way to make a one-seat ride from Manhattan. Or, if that is implausible, an extension of the Monorail to Newark-Penn?
With all of the discussion of the Airtrain, this very useful example of how to do a "train to the plane" has been forgotten.
"My question is -- why couldn't the PATH be extended from Newark-Penn to the Airport? This would seem to be a nice cheap way to make a one-seat ride from Manhattan. Or, if that is implausible, an extension of the Monorail to Newark-Penn?
With all of the discussion of the Airtrain, this very useful example of how to do a "train to the plane" has been forgotten."
No, it hasn't been forgotten. PATH is undertaking a feasibility study of extending the subway from Newark to the airport transfer station. I wrote to the city of Newark and PATH to encourage it. Mayor Sharpe James wrote back and he supports the idea.
Want to help push it along? Write to Michael DePallo, Director, PATH, One PATH Plaza, Jersey City, NJ 07306.
That sounds like an excellent idea. A couple of problems though:
1) It would mean mixing PATH and NJT trains on the same track, right? Currently, they don't mix in revenue service. If they did this, PATH would have to permanently give up on the idea of getting out from FRA regulation. Of course, there wouldn't be much chance of that anyway.
2) Does PATH want people with "big bags" riding during the rush hour? Might they operate the extension non-rush hours only to prevent this? Actuallly, airport passengers would be riding in the opposite direction from the rush-hour commuters, so perhaps that wouldn't be a concern.
Um no. This is not the way to do a Train to the Plane. Have a look at just about any European Airport (Athens excepted). There is rail service from a major city terminus direct to the airport.
Even Heathrow, which for years was neglected this way, (the Piccadilly line is fun, but slow) now has 15-min express rides from Paddington, every 15 minutes.
Slightly off-topic: The major reason that many people don’t want to take public transport to an airport is the baggage. Have the airlines ever considered taking checked baggage at the city center, then putting the passengers on a train to the airport? When they finally get around to redoing NY Penn Station, couldn’t there be a special air train platform? Passengers check in their bags, and then get onto the train and are delivered in comfort to the airport. Meanwhile the bags go into sorted bins in special rail cars, which are unloaded at the airport and given directly to the airlines.
I know it will take a little thought to get the security issues worked out: a passenger’s bags don’t go on the plane unless the passenger is on the plane etc, but it would free up a lot of the hassle around the airports with people in cars dumping half the contents of their houses out onto the tarmac!
John.
Have the airlines ever considered taking checked baggage at the city center, then putting the passengers on a train to the airport?
They do this with Heathrow, right? It's a good idea, though the last time I was in London it hadn't been fully implemented yet, so I still had to take the Heathrow Express to the airport before being able to check in. It's not just a baggage check, it's a full ticket counter just like at the airport, so you're confirmed for the seat before boarding the train.
When they finally get around to redoing NY Penn Station, couldn’t there be a special air train platform? Passengers check in their bags, and then get onto the train and are delivered in comfort to the airport.
There is, in fact, space being set aside in the Farley Penn Station project for airline counters. I'm a little unsure about What exactly they'll get used for; it probably depends on whether the airlines are enthusiastic about using that space for actual check-ins, and if they can figure out a way to get luggage to the airport in the absence of any direct rail route to either EWR or JFK.
[Slightly off-topic: The major reason that many people don’t want to take public transport to an airport is the baggage. Have the airlines ever considered taking checked baggage at the city center, then putting the passengers on a train to the airport? When they finally get around to redoing NY Penn Station, couldn’t there be a special air train platform? Passengers check in their bags, and then get onto the train and are delivered in comfort to the airport. Meanwhile the bags go into sorted bins in special rail cars, which are unloaded at the airport and given directly to the airlines.]
Very much so. As part of the original Airtrain "extension of the airport" concept, the Farley station was built with airport check-in facilities. Unless things have changed, they haven't figured out how they're going to deal with the baggage yet. For that matter, the forces of reaction (g) are still fighting NY State over a direct ride to JFK, but I'm convinced they'll lose. I only wish they'd found a way to bring Airtrain *into* the terminals at JFK, and had put a bit more thought into the needs of travellers to Newark and LGA, not to mention inaugurating Airtrain with direct service to Manhattan before it gets a bad name as another "Train to the Plane."
One idea I like -- have check-in on the Airtrain itself. Just have someone wheel a computer terminal down the aisle. That would eliminate the check-in time and make the service even more attractive.
Otherwise, I agree 100% on the need for a dedicated service, and it's well understood in at least some of the corridors of power as well. Subway/PATH and Airtrain access will serve two different constituencies, with airport employees making use of the former while most travellers use the latter. Speed, reliability, simplicity, safety, comfort, and direct access from the City to the terminal are key to attracting travellers, most of whom aren't going to want to take their bags down subway steps or transfer to and from the LIRR or
here. My main concern is that they've already made the services too complicated and incompatible to push it over the margin and make it successful. That being said, it's both easy and desireable to provide subway/PATH access to the airports as well.
Bringing AirTrain into more of the terminals would have been good (it is part of Terminal 4) but an enclosed, climate-controlled walkway with moving sidewalk will be available for the other terminal stops, so it's not so bad.
It is better, though, if you can put the entrance right in people's faces as they go get their luggage. We'll see how this works out.
[Light rail carries a fraction of the passengers. It is also a fraction of the cost. And it helps support urbanism in the heartland. Closer to home, the other big plus: it builds a national constituency for transit, and with it an increasing federal commitment to it.]
I didn't know about that walkway. That's actually better than I thought.
Seems to me they should make it free for a while to get people using it, but only after they bring service into Penn.
"Slightly off-topic: The major reason that many people don’t want to take public transport to an airport is the baggage. Have the airlines ever considered taking checked baggage at the city center, then putting the passengers on a train to the airport? When they finally get around to redoing NY Penn Station, couldn’t there be a special air train platform? Passengers check in their bags, and then get onto the train and are delivered in comfort to the airport. Meanwhile the bags go into sorted bins in special rail cars, which are unloaded at the airport and given directly to the airlines."
That's not off-topic at all. In fact, the airlines at JFK are starting to think about it. Ticketing will be provided (current plans) at AirTrain's Jamaica terminal. Luggage is more difficult - but an interim step could be adding a baggage car to the train, then wheeling the luggage directly into the conveyor at the terminal. This means an airline employee or PA employee would have to be assigned to each such train.
At any rate, your point is well taken. The situation will continue to evolve - We may see luggage accepted at Penn or GCT by an intermodal train in future (capable of riding on both LIRR and AirTrain ROW).
"Um no. This is not the way to do a Train to the Plane. Have a look at just about any European Airport (Athens excepted). There is rail service from a major city terminus direct to the airport.
Even Heathrow, which for years was neglected this way, (the Piccadilly line is fun, but slow) now has 15-min express rides from Paddington, every 15 minutes."
Um, yes in this case, actually. You're assuming the city center is the only place people originate from to go to the airport. That can lead to a closed-minded approach. The PA originally wanted to do that, but at $5.6 billion it was too expensive. I think the current plan will work well, in that anybody from Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn or Manhattan with access to a subway station or commuter rail can use AirTrain. A major challenge is to increase the number of subway stations which are ADA-compliant (elevators, ramps), to ensure that the system is "baggage-friendly."
As for PATH, it would go from downtown Newark, where Newark subway and bus connections are present, to the Newark airport terminals' monorail. I am waiting to see what happens to the feasibility study.
I like Heathrow's system, and have used it. But I also like the progress we're making here.
[The PA originally wanted to do that, but at $5.6 billion it was too expensive.]
Isn't that the cost of a dedicated link? I agree that that doesn't make sense at all. But it wouldn't cost much to use existing ROW.
I think the current plan will work well, in that anybody from Long Island, Queens, Brooklyn or Manhattan with access to a subway station or commuter rail can use AirTrain.
Realistically, most people living on Long Island have cars, and they're not going to drive to an LIRR station to fight for a parking spot to take a train to another train when they could drive straight to the airport terminal without going through (most of) NYC. This is especially true for people with luggage and/or for times when more than 1 person is going to the airport (even if not everyone is boarding the flight).
It IS good that people from Queens and Brooklyn can use AirTrain, but an AirTrain that went from Howard Beach through the airport and all the way to Manhattan could still make the Jamaica stop and accomplish the same thing. This assumes, of course, that the train would be allowed to make an intermediate stop outside the airport despite using PFC money.
"Realistically, most people living on Long Island have cars, and they're not going to drive to an LIRR station to fight for a parking spot to take a train to another train when they could drive straight to the airport terminal without going through (most of) NYC. This is especially true for people with luggage and/or for times when more than 1 person is going to the airport (even if not everyone is boarding the flight)."
If that were true, the LIRR would have no business going into Manhattan either. Granted, the diesel trains come from long distances. But going to Kennedy by car is no picnic these days. A lot of people in MU territory will go for this. Effective marketing by the PA will help a lot.
"It IS good that people from Queens and Brooklyn can use AirTrain, but an AirTrain that went from Howard Beach through the airport and all the way to Manhattan could still make the Jamaica stop and accomplish the same thing. This assumes, of course, that the train would be allowed to make an intermediate stop outside the airport despite using PFC money."
That may happen, but consider another aspect: When you take the LIRR to AirTrain from Manhattan, Brooklyn or Long Island, you can take any train on any branch (except Port Washington) and get to your gate. At Penn Station that means a train every few minutes; out on LI it means any train stopping at Jamaica (How many don't?). If you ran AirTrain into Penn or GCT, you'd need a lot more rolling stock and access to the tunnels to guarantee good service. The PA is still thinking about doing that, but what we have starting in 2003 is a pretty good deal.
"This assumes, of course, that the train would be allowed to make an intermediate stop outside the airport despite using PFC money."
The answer to that is probably yes it can. I say probably because the PA's counsel thought that could pass muster with the more grand scheme, though not carried out. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld present funding, which helps. I have not read the Second Circuits verbatim decision. If it is not inclusive of other situations, then, if sometime in the future, a station were (hypothetically) proposed for the Van Wyck at Linden Blvd. or Rockaway Blvd. then that issue might be revisited by the NIMBYs' attorney and the Second Circuit would have to rule again.
Realistically, most people living on Long Island have cars, and they're not going to drive to an LIRR station to fight for a parking spot to take a train to another train when they could drive straight to the airport terminal without going through (most of) NYC. This is especially true for people with luggage and/or for times when more than 1 person is going to the airport (even if not everyone is boarding the flight).
If that were true, the LIRR would have no business going into Manhattan either. Granted, the diesel trains come from long distances. But going to Kennedy by car is no picnic these days. A lot of people in MU territory will go for this. Effective marketing by the PA will help a lot.
Driving to Kennedy Airport from most points in Nassau and Suffolk isn't all that bad, except during morning rush hour (when you'll never find a parking spot at a LIRR station anyway). Driving is simply more convenient than Airtrain will be.
"Driving to Kennedy Airport from most points in Nassau and Suffolk isn't all that bad, except during morning rush hour (when you'll never find a parking spot at a LIRR station anyway). Driving is simply more convenient than Airtrain will be."
Only time will tell for sure.
Only time will tell. LI commuters have no AirTrain option now. When they do, wait a couple of months, and then let's see how driving and AirTrain compare.
I don't believe this is the case for LHR, but GAT has check in and baggage collection in Victoria Station in Westminster London, followed by a non-stop express to Gatwick (which is necessary, since GAT is half-way to Normandy from central London). It's expensive, as are all things in London, but it's very convenient and fast.
Does anybody know if NJT's new trains will be modified to handle lots of baggage? Certainly the existing equipment is totally unable to handle the task. If the equipment doesn't arrive on time, than ah pity the foo' who tries to use Airport station in rush hour.
Plus, I thought I saw signs that the Penn Station (NY) renovations for the NJT end wouldn't be finished until 2002. With all the work going on, it would be damn close to impossible for anyone with bags to make it to the train in the first place.
I really, really want this thing to work. I'm just really, really afraid that it hasn't been completely thought through.
NY Penn is ADA Compliant. Tracks 1-12 are exclusive use of NJT and Amtrak, Tracks 17-21 are exclusive LIRR and tracks 13-16 are shared by the three.
NY Penn has two projects underway at this time
1- New floors and walls on the lower (Exit) level which should be finished later this year.
2- NJT is buuilding more exits from tracks 1-12 including additional stairs, elevators and escalators and a separate NJT waiting area near the corner of 31 or 32 and 7th. This project will be done(supposedly)next year.
Elsewhere in this thread there was talk of PATH's using the AMtrak R.O.W.- There are three added problems with this:
1- PATH does not have cab signals
2- PATH can not run at 80mph
3- I do not think PATH has to comply with NORAC rules. These are the rules for the railroads in the Northeast Corridor.
If PATH were to be extended it would have to be separate trackage which leads to a question of where to put those tracks-
We have South Street(the closed NECL station) qwhich is where the PATh tracks end and the structure narrows before the Raritan Line turns off at Aldene Junction (Hunter Tower). Where would you put the two tracks for PATH
The good news is that there is a (really low profile) study to extend PATH to EWR. The bad news is that it would apparently only go as far as the NEC station, requiring a monorail transfer. PATH should go on to the terminals. I am concerned that the monorail won't hack it. The Newark-Elizabeth Rail Line will apparently plug somewhere into the monrail as well. That would total three robust transit lines (commuter rail, heavy rail and light rail) plugging into a single wobbly amusement park-type line.
Anyway, the study is under the radar because of politics. The last known public sighting of this idea was last May, when Gov. Whitman floated a PATH extension as a balance to all the PA money being spent on Farley. Later in the year, they broke the logjam without the PATH extension.
I have proposed building AirTrain II to LGA, and pairing it with this project for bistate equity. The PA could do something people want -- airport access -- instead of twinning the Goethals and some of their other ideas. That would also free up $1b of MTA money that is planned to go into extending the Astoria line to LGA for East Side Access or 2nd Ave. instead.
Moreover, the air traveller would then be able to simply arrive at Penn Station, and take a connecting train to all three major airports: LIRR to Jamaica for AirTrain I to JFK; LIRR to Woodside for AirTrain II to LGA; NJT to Newark Airport for EWR. Not European, but MUCH better than the present.
By the way, I don't think the air terminal will end up in Farley, even though they talk about it and show it in their visuals. As I recall, Farley sits above the long center tracks Amtrak uses. The tracks to either side don't extend that far. Farley doesn't sit above most of the NJT station tracks on the south end, and it doesn't sit above many of the LIRR tracks on the north end. That would significantly limit the number of trains air travellers could use to get to EWR or JFK (or LGA), short of a mad dash to run east back to the old part of the station. The word would get out to go to the old Penn Station and wait there. So I am guessing the current Amtrak area at NYP will be converted to airport access uses. Better subway access anyway. And when Madison Square Garden leaves in a few years, something more appropriate could be built above this old station area.
You have some interesting ideas, but you have to remember that political interests must be served as well.
"That would total three robust transit lines (commuter rail, heavy rail and light rail) plugging into a single wobbly amusement park-type line."
That's a very silly thing to post. Atlanta has a similar amusement park ride (the exact kind of traction used is beside the point) and it works well. So does Tampa, for Land-Side/Air-Side transfer, though there's no mass transit line in Tampa.
I don't know how much it would cost to put PATH into the terminals, or if PATH's trains can negotiate them well. The IRT would have the same problem at LGA, but there the MTA would probably only serve the Main Terminal anyway.
But at Newark you have an existing line serving all terminals, and which allows subway/commuter rail service to be constructed without bothering property owners, NIMBYs and the like for new right-of-ways. That's an important advantage, probably critical to assuring that something gets built (for PATH, anyway).
[That's a very silly thing to post. Atlanta has a similar amusement park ride (the exact kind of traction used is beside the point) and it works well. So does Tampa, for Land-Side/Air-Side transfer, though there's no mass transit line in Tampa.]
Atlanta and Tampa are much more robust. Atlanta is also enclosed, and Tampa is in better weather. Simple question: have either of these systems crashed lately? The Newark monorail is smaller, and it was just shut down for several months. There was significant opposition to this type of system when the PA built it, for good reason. I'm speaking as a regular EWR user. We'll see later in the year. My guess is that people will quickly want something bigger and more reliable. They could walk between terminals during the latest monorail crash (the shuttle buses often got caught in gridlock). Walking from the NEC is not a pleasant option.
[I don't know how much it would cost to put PATH into the terminals, or if PATH's trains can negotiate them well. The IRT would have the same problem at LGA, but there the MTA would probably only serve the Main Terminal anyway.]
It could stop at each terminal landside, along the roadway. Or even have an O'Hare central station -- inferior, but better than being in something that doesn't move, like the monorail does regularly. At LGA, I know MTA wants to serve ALL the terminals, including Marine. That is why they prefer extending the Astoria line, because it can come in from the northwest and access the Delta shuttle before moving to the other main terminals.
[But at Newark you have an existing line serving all terminals, and which allows subway/commuter rail service to be constructed without bothering property owners, NIMBYs and the like for new right-of-ways. That's an important advantage, probably critical to assuring that something gets built (for PATH, anyway).]
An aerial line into Newark would raise about as much opposition as the aerial monorail has. And the proposed NERL extension has. I don't see a major problem here. Not many private owners between the NEC and EWR; most of the ROW is owned by the PA or is public roadway.
Again, we'll see later in the year when the monorail gets the crush. It will either handle it, or people will start crying out for something more robust.
[The IRT would have the same problem at LGA, but there the MTA would probably only serve the Main Terminal anyway.]
Someone said here once that the PA had blocked IRT access to the terminals. My guess is they're afraid the system will be extended and serve as a stopping point for the Great Unwashed. Personally, I'd like to see systems at all three airports that accept both trains and subways -- that would provide maximum versatility to adjust service to meet demand at no extra cost. It's too late for Newark, but it could still be done at LGA. Ultimately I think we need both kinds of service -- subway access for employees and Airtrain access for travellers with bags. But a free transfer to the subway would be just as effective, and possibly more efficient from the commuter's perspective, because not all subways or PATH trains would go to the airport due to capacity concerns.
"Someone said here once that the PA had blocked IRT access to the terminals. My guess is they're afraid the system will be extended and serve as a stopping point for the Great Unwashed."
That is a load of sliced baloney. Whoever said that heard something third hand, out of context, and mixed in a lot of imagination. It's not productive to spread around nonsense like that.
There are technical, geographic, financial, political issues to be settled, it's true. But if the MTA goes ahead with the proposed N extension to LGA, or an alternate plan like the ones suggested here, the PA will not obstruct it. They will expect MTA to abide by certain conditions related to the safe operation of the airport and terminals. But the only people in the way will be the NIMBYs (as usual) and if the PA likes the plan enough they may contribute money to it, address the sincere, legitimate concerns of residents and either buy off or squash the remaining NIMBYs.
The PA is spending $4.5 billion on new parking garages and access roads at its airports. They stand to make a pretty penny from all the cars parked there. Why would they want to make it any easier for anyone to get there by rail?
If they do offer PATH service to NWK, it will probably cost an extra $10 or $20 fare, collected at NWK.
"The PA is spending $4.5 billion on new parking garages and access roads at its airports. They stand to make a pretty penny from all the cars parked there. Why would they want to make it any easier for anyone to get there by rail?"
Step back and look at the big picture. The garages are great for fees but there is a limit to how many cars can use the access roads to get in. So the rail line helps increase total reception capacity at the airport. And with more people using rail, the roadways and parking slots will be available to more of the affluent limo and taxi crowd, improving customer service to them.
"If they do offer PATH service to NWK, it will probably cost an extra $10 or $20 fare, collected at NWK."
It's completely premature to assume anything. The results of the feasibility study will give us something to talk about.
Don’t they make far more on landing fees to make investment in public transport connections worthwhile?
"Don’t they make far more on landing fees to make investment in public transport connections worthwhile?"
You're connecting two concepts that have no relation to each other.
The second segment of LIRR History in the April Third Rail.
This section has more of interest to Brooklynites and honorary Brooklynites, with the Manhattan Beach and Culver Lines mentioned. Also a rather large map (three segments each about 150K) shows a detailed picture of LI, the RR and its branches in 1882.
If you look to the west, in Brooklyn, the lines look a lot like a hammer and sickle.
If you look to the west, in Brooklyn, the lines look a lot like a hammer and sickle
And here I thought it was the IND that had the socialist roots.
Wow, that story would have been impossible for me to understand without the map, especially since I'm not even familiar with LI today, never mind 130 years ago.
A very interesting site and some really cool links. I looked at the Grade Crossing Upgrade info, including the maps and photos. Comparing these with the Brooklyn Survey map of 1888 on this site I note the following:
On the Brooklyn Survey map, the Bay Ridge Line branches to the Manhattan Beach Line from both the east and west, while only from the east on the 1918 map. What happened to the other branch?
There are branches from the Bay Ridge Line to the PP&CI (Culver) line from both the east and west at Parkville Junction on the 1918 map; when I lived in that neighborhood, there was only a branch from the west. What happened to the other branch? I can tell you that there was no sidewalk on the north side of Elmwood Av between McDonald and about the point where the turnout is shown the whole time I lived there, and no houses either.
PIG!
PIG!
HUH?
Perhaps it's an acronym for "pursue intellectual goals"?
It's an acronym for "post ignorant garbage"?
But why do you feel that you need to respond to a 3-letter post if you think it's beneath you?
I don't understand your question. I find the earth beneath me.
Pigs roll around on the earth.
I walk on the earth; we must be related.
What PIG?
"PIG! "
Wait a minute ! Is there any invisible text after PIG ?
Bill "Newkirk"
No. At least View Source doesn’ show any. Maybe Pork has returned to his origins :-)
Funny how a post simply with the word PIG would get so many responses.
PIG!
NUT!
NUT BRAND!!
oink !!
Aye!
Just after I posted this on SubTalk originally, the database crashed before I could get much of any feedback. I then re-posted it on my Urban Transit Forum site, but as of right now a whopping eight people even looked at it. I don't want to see all my writing going to waste, so here it is again for a third (and hopefully final) time for your viewing pleasure.
Greetings, all... As promised, here's a full report of my trip to London (topics are in no particular order). My apologies in advance if I get some of the station names wrong, as I don't have a tube map handy as I write this so everyting is 100% from memory.
First Impressions
My plane was three hours late leaving O'Hare, but we finally managed to make it into Heathrow early Friday afternoon. After going through immigration and customs (a new experience for me, since this was my first trip overseas), I made my way to the Tube stop at Terminal 4, got myself a photo ID and a weekly Travelcard for zones 1-2, and bought an extension to get me from the terminal (zone 6) to my hotel near Victoria Station. The Piccadilly Line train showed up after a short wait, I made the transfer to the District Line at Hammersmith which got me to Victoria. The ride was a bit long, but offered some nice scenery along the way of some of London's closer-in suburbs. London's suburbs that I saw are certainly much more quaint-looking than the plastic wastelands that surround most American cities. The tube trains themselves seemed very small (not for the claustrophobic), but were amazingly comfortable.
I finally found my hotel, a small bed-and-breakfast on Warwick Way about a 15-minute walk from the Victoria tube station. The place was a bit of a dive, but at least it served its purpose of giving me a place to crash and a hot shower at an affordable price. To its credit, the guy at the desk was very courteous and helpful.
I spent most of the rest of the day wandering around the immediate neighborhood and exploring as much as possible. I eventually found my way past Buckingham Palace and then over to Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square, the epicenter of London's tourism and nightlife activities. I could easily spend a year just exploring the vast maze of side streets that surround that area. I also hopped onto the tube and made it out to the Jubilee Line extension and Docklands Light Rail. I've already talked considerably about the Jubilee Line extension here (the stations are simply incredible), and the DLR was nice, but had the flavor of an airport people-mover system.
Clubbing and Nightlife
Saturday night I made it over to The End, one of the more popular clubs in London that specializes in techno and house music. Very impressive. There's another club next door and above The End called AKA, with a stairway connecting the two. The night I went they had both clubs opened up so that you pay one cover charge for both places. Nothing radically different about them compared to clubs in Chicago, except that the music is more ecclectic and that they body-search you on the way in. Not surprising, since crowded nightclubs tend to be popular targets for terrorist bombings. AKA was playing house music similar to what you'd find in most clubs here in Chicago, while the lounge area of The End was playing sort of a slow, hard-hitting variety of hip-hop. The main dance floor in The End was playing a very cool mix of house/trance/techno. I stayed for a couple hours before heading up to Fabric in the Smithfield Market area, but when I got there I was confronted with a line that literally stretched around the block. I said hell with it and headed back to my hotel.
On other nights I made it to Sound and Bar Rumba in the Leicester Square area. Sound was a bit of a tourist trap, but Bar Rumba was very cool. One night I went they had a DJ spinning some funky acid jazz, and another night it was more drum & bass stuff. I never did make it to Fabric (nor Home, Notting Hill Arts Club, or Ministry of Sound, nor any number of other places I was hoping to hit), so I guess I'll have to get to them on my next trip over. I did, however, pick up a very cool Ministry of Sound trance compilation CD at HMV, and I've got MOS's website address so that I can order more CD's in the same series. (Just last night I noticed that the Virgin Megastore here in Chicago has a few of these CD's, and that they're apparently quite popular, so hopefully some club owner here in Chicago will finally come to his senses and have at least one night dedicated to trance music. Chicago-style house music is nice, but that's about all you hear around here.)
God and Country
Sunday morning I went to the 11:00 AM worship service at Westminster Abbey, and the building is incredible. However, something about it left me feeling somewhat unfulfilled, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe it was because almost everybody else at the service seemed to be a tourist just like me, so I didn't feel the sense of community that I'm used to in a church.
That evening I headed over to St. Columba's in the Knightsbridge area not too far from Harrod's, which is the church where an associate pastor and close friend at my home church in Chicago was on staff before he came here. St. Columba's is part of the Church of Scotland, which is the father of the Presbyterian church here in the US, my own denomination. The sense of community I felt was missing from Westminster Abbey was very much evident at St. Columba's, and I was welcomed with open arms by a very hospitable congregation.
Later on in the week I finally made my way over to St. Paul's Cathedral, and that place is utterly staggering. I can't think of any other piece of architecture that literally brought tears to my eyes. There are very few places where I have ever felt the presence of God so profoundly. The chapel behind the high altar, dedicated to the American dead of World War II from the people of Great Britain, was especially moving.
Other architectural highlights included the new Great Court at the British Museum designed by Norman Foster and the Lloyd's of London building designed by Richard Rogers, among other projects scattered throughout the city. It was difficult to walk a single block without stumbling upon some architectural materpiece or another, either modern or historic.
Family Roots
Monday I got on a train at Liverpool Street Station, destination: Burnham-on-Crouch, a tiny fishing and yachting village about 1-1/2 hours east of London by rail. Burnham-on-Crouch is where my grandfather was born and raised, and a cousin of my father's still lives there. I walked around the town a bit, found my grandfather's childhood home at 5 Albert Road, and grabbed a bite of lunch in a quaint pub. I then called up my second-cousin there in the offhand chance that she would be home, and it turned out the pay phone I used was only about 50 feet away from the houseboat she and her husband live on. She just happened to have taken that day off from work, so she invited me over and we had some tea while we talked for about an hour or so. She mentioned that my grandfather always loved London with a passion, and took almost every opportunity to ride the train into the city and explore every square inch of it.
His fascination with cities continued well past World War II when he had met met his future wife at a Woolworth's lunch counter in Manhattan, gotten married to her at Marble Collegiate Church, and settled down in Cincinnati. Looking back, I remember him taking me on long walks around downtown Cincinnati, and I guess it's pretty safe to say I've inherited his passion for urban exploration which led me back to London, as well as to seek out a career in architecture.
Exploring my family roots in Burnham-on-Crouch was made even more poignant by the fact that my father is currently in a hospital bed in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, being pumped full of toxic chemicals and being prepared for a bone marrow transplant in the hopes that they can kill off the tumors pressing against his spinal cord. The docs think they have a pretty good chance of beating this thing, but who the hell knows for sure.
The train ride itself was very scenic, except that on the way out the heat wasn't working in my coach, leaving me to freeze to death. I also noticed that the trains are built like tin cans compared to our own Sherman tanks. I suspect a sensible railcar design probably lies somewhere between the two extremes.
The only visible sign of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, aside from screaming newspaper headlines (I think the British use the tabloids as an outlet to counter their traditional stiff-upper-lip subtlety), was a large plot of freshly-turned earth not far from the railroad tracks on the way to Burnham, a column of black smoke rising from a hillside in the distance, and a few large yellow signs along nearby highways relating to travel restrictions in rural areas. Also, I observed a group of official-looking people in white jumpsuits and face masks wandering around on a hillside. Bad time to have unprotected sex with a sheep, I guess.
Foster and Partners
On my last full day in London, I finally got over to Lord Norman Foster's office for an extensive tour and informational interview. VERY impressive! The office organization is every bit as high-tech and precise as the architecture they produce, with a very democratic corporate structure. There are no offices anywhere in the studio; senior partners and even Norman Foster himself share a single large studio along with rank-and-file employees and support staff, and everybody there has the exact same workstation. Dress code is very casual, with some people in blue jeans and t-shirts and others in business suits. The 500-person office even has its own cafe and parking attendants. The place had the feel of a Silicon Valley dot-com, except that they're actually producing real products and making real profits.
At the end of the tour, I was able to sit down in the cafe with my tour guide, an architect who happens to be working on a 53-story headquarters building in Chicago for the Hyatt Hotel Corporation and Priztker Family Foundation, to be built not two blocks from my office in the Sears Tower. We talked a bit about Chicago's architectural traditions and current construction climate, and we saw eye-to-eye on almost every issue (such a refreshing change from the narrow-minded imbeciles I work for now).
The highlight of the tour: He looked at my portfolio in detail, and strongly reccommended that I send a copy of it along with my resume to Norman Foster personally; apparently their typical practice for an overseas project is to open a small field office with 6-8 architects to work on that particular project and coordinate with local consulatants and contractors, and he talked like they'll probably do likewise for the Chicago project. If so, then I got the impression that I might be person they'd like to have on board for that project. I plan on getting that stuff sent out early next week, so wish me luck!!
Mind the Gap
Finally, the Tube. I've already talked about it a bit here, so I won't bore you by repeating the same observations over again. The Jubilee Line extension stations are simply incredible; my favorites were Canary Wharf (naturally), Southwark, and North Greenwhich. I didn't keep a log of which particular routes and stations I used, but at one time or another I probably used just about every major station within the area bounded by the Circle Line, and quite a few beyond the Circle. A few more random observations:
Many of the Circle Line stations are very cool, especially the older ones with the brick vaults (Baker Street, Paddington) and glass shed roofs.
Overall, the system actually seems incredibly modern considering how old it is. With the large vaulted ceilings and long escalators, some parts almost feel like an precursor to the Washington Metro.
Elephant and Castle: I simply couldn't pass up a station with a name like that. Anybody have any clue as to the name's origins? The station itself is a bit old and decrepid, with elevators as the only means of reaching street level.
Speaking of elevators, the station at Hampstead on the Northern Line is incredibly deep. Not surprisingly, elevators are the only way to reach the surface, and it felt like I was riding the express elevators here in the Sears Tower. The neighborhood in which you emerge, located on a surprisingly steep hillside, is also very cool.
Headways are excellent, and the trains -- as small as they are -- are very modern and comfortable.
Tube staff, signage, and electronic message boards are very helpful and make the system very easy to navigate for even a dumb American tourist such as myself.
Some of the larger stations, particularly at Green Park and Bank, make you feel like a rat in a maze as you wander around long and complex passages to transfer from one line to another. It's really pretty incredible how complex these stations are in some places.
If anybody else has any questions or other observations, feel free to speak up since I've no doubt left out more than a few details.
Near-Disaster
Thursday morning, after I had exhausted my time in London and literally almost every dime of my money, I hauled my luggage back onto the tube at Victoria, bound for Heathrow.
About three stops away from Heathrow, I gasped in horror when I realized that since my weekly travelcard was only for fare zones 1-2, I had not bought an extension for the airport in zone 6. Even worse, I didn't have the cash in my pocket nor in my bank account to pay for an extension, much less the stiff penalty fare. I was almost in full-panic mode by the time I got off the train at Terminal 4, as disturbing images of being locked up in a British gulag or not being able to ever leave the tube danced in my head, as my transatlantic flight was preparing to board.
Luckily, the lady at the turnstiles at Terminal 4 was sympathetic to my sob story, and was kind enough to let me exit the station without calling the cops on me. Good karma to you, anonymous Tube employee.
In Conclusion...
I'm impressed that I got to see as much as I did of London, but there's still many things I didn't see. I could easily spend several years there just exploring the city. As I said before, London is one of a small handful of great cities on this planet that I think everybody should visit at least once. As for myself, I'm looking forward to many happy returns.
I've got about 50 photos that need to be developed, some of which include transit content. I'll be sure to scan those and send them to Dave for posting on nycsubway.org as soon as possible.
Cheers,
-- David
Chicago, IL
Still interesting the 2nd (for me) time! And with BA's fares this month, I might have to go back very soon :) How can anyone find the city that invented the subway uninteresting?
Still a BA man huh?
Once you take Virgin, you'll think that BA has the ambience of a freight boxcar.
Then again this is SubTalk so you may like that kinda thing.
Whoever has the cheaper fares at the moment. I've had sh*tty experiences with BA in the past, but on my budget, it still boils down to price alone. I was actually pissed when Pakistan International Airways stopped service between NY and Ist, because they were damn cheap (although I can assume why).
Does Virgin Atlantic ban screaming infants, obnoxious loud-mouthed tourists, and hyperactive preschoolers from all flights?
-- David
Chicago, IL
>>>Does Virgin Atlantic ban screaming infants, obnoxious loud-mouthed tourists, and hyperactive preschoolers from all flights?<<<
No, but that's what the overhead compartments are there for.
Sounds like your flight wasn't too peachy.
Shouldn't every airline? Luckily mine was a redeye from Orlando to London, so I was the only one awake. Turkish Airlines (in case anyone ever needs to go where they fly, btw) has special childrens' sections, a blessing from Allah! And they give you a full subway map of Istanbul, as well as free toothbrushes, which I still have as a souvenir.
Virgin is the same when it comes to freebies. They give you when you board a gift pack that contains (what I can remember) a toothbrush & toothpaste, lip balm, ear plugs, eye hood, pen & pencil, writing paper and a few other things that I can't remember right now.
That and every seat has a personal TV set & hand held remote with 10 different movies, eight different program channels and ten different music channels. It also has a personal Super Nintendo system with ten different games. The best part is the "SkyMap" which shows you on a map exactly where you are, how fast the plane is going, what the exterior temperature and wind velocity is (the temp is usually around -68 degrees), how many miles to the destination as well as the time remaining in the journey.
And it costs the same on Virgin than it does on BA! If I can't get to London on Virgin, well then I can't get to London.
Actually, both the British Airways flights I took offered pretty much the exact same things. I guess they took a few clues from their new competition in order to remain competitive.
Annoying passengers aside, I was actually fairly impressed with the level of service I got on BA, and the food was even half-decent. (Imagine that!) I'm a bit curious if other transatlantic airlines (United, American) offer similar amenities, or if they treat you like livestock as if you were flying to Indianapolis.
-- David
Chicago, IL
BA must've been getting killed by Virgin, that's why they changed. Good to know that BA offers the TV service as well.
I'm a bit curious if other transatlantic airlines (United, American) offer similar amenities
I haven't been on a Delta transatlantic flight, but going to Brazil, they hook up the passengers. In coach, you have a choice of what entrees you want. They also have a diverse variety of drinks. In both classes of service, they also have that "SkyMap" thing, proabably the exact same system.
The way to really fly on international on Delta is in BusinessElite class. The leg room you get is outragous, you have to unbuckle your seat belt to even think about gabbing something out of the seat pocket in front of you. THe seats recline all the way back, have leg supports, lumbar support and headrests that you can shape around your head. Everyone gets their own 8 inch TV with like 5-6 channels and there's like 8 choices of movies (4 movie channels with 2 "cycles") for the duration of the flight. The amount of food they give is almost too much. You get an appitizer, salad, entree, and dessert. They bring each thing out to you seperately. It's really high class, especially for my poor, get-free-flghts ass.
Are the measurements given in Metric or in Stupid?
>>>Are the measurements given in Metric or in Stupid?<<<
That's a good one. Metric mostly.
Question: Is the USA the last country to not go metric?
The UK in the past couple of years has gone metric, but they retained miles & MPH as opposed to kilometers and KmH.
Only the United States, Myanmar and Liberia. How absolutely horrible that we have to be associated with such horrid places.
Ya got that right Pork.
I have to say that there's one good thing about the Stupid system: It's a lot more fun to figure out how many rods in a furlong (40), drams in a hogshead (64,512) or grains in a stone (98,000) than it is to figure out how many yoctometers there are in a yottameter (One Quintodecillion or 1048).
Dramamines in a yotta?...........quinto grains in............WHAT DA HELL IZ YOU SMOKIN?
???????
Well I've got to admit, whatever school that you're in, they're doing a good job.
Cause most of that stuff that you were talking about I had never heard of before, other than stones. I do know that one stone=14 pounds.
I thought we already discussed how I feel about school. And I certainly didn't learn any of that in a youthful curiosity stifling center school.
I thought we already discussed how I feel about school. And I certainly didn't learn any of that in a youthful curiosity stifling center school.
Gotcha.
yocto is a prefix (symbol "y") for 10-24 and yotta is 1024 (symbol "Y"). My favorite measurement in the Stupid system is the "slug," which measures mass.
I have no problems with BA.. (Two unearned upgrades out of Heathrow in a row will do that to you...)
Yup, it sure will. Lol.
As an ex-Londoner, ex-patriot, some information and comments:
1: Elephant & Castle = Infanta of Castile. Butchered Spanish, though there is now a pub of the same name there, with a sign that has the requisite elephant and styled castle.
2.Churches: St Paul’s I find much more interesting than Westminster Abbey: from the Crypt (wooden model as Wren first envisaged it) to climbing to the top of the dome (great views), there is great history everywhere you look. If you get a chance next time, though, take a look at some of the other city churches. Wren designed a number of them and there are still most of them standing, the bombing in WW2 notwithstanding. Also St Peter ad Vincula, the chapel in the Tower of London is worth a look. (Yet more history…)
3. Law. You missed the Inns of Court. One of the peculiarities of the British Legal system is a distinction between solicitors (who do contract, divorce, etc) and barristers (who can represent you in court). Every barrister must belong to one of the Inns of Court, which are clustered around Temple Bar, the original entrance to the City. If you can get a look around, the dining halls in the Middle and Inner Temple are fascinating to look at.
4. Tower of London. Ignore the jewels, unless you go in November when the crowds are absent. (I used to work about 1/2 mile from the tower, and would walk around the outside at lunchtime, watching the Japanese tourists take pictures of each other, with both of them having cameras obsucuring their faces–go figure). The White Tower has a military museum, which includes King Henry VIII’s suit of armor (take a look at the codpiece on this one). Get a tour from the Yeoman Warders (Beefeaters, though probably no more with Mad Cow Disease). Also, if you can plan ahead, write to the Lieutenant (pronounced LEFTenant) Governor, and request (free) tickets to the Ceremony of the Keys, which is the official locking-up of the Tower at night. (Yet more history…)
5. The Underground: London’s systems came together very early on, but the system is old and running over capacity. Also the geology is different: London is alluvial clay, whereas NY is rock. This means that the NatWest Tower, which was floated on a concrete raft was actually more difficult to build than the WTC.
The consequence for the tubes was a lot more tunnelling than cut-and-cover surface work, the big exceptions being the Circle/District/Metropolitan lines, which originally ran with steam trains, hence the gaps in the Circle line at regular intervals. Baker Street station is way cool, especially since they cleaned the brickwork (it used to be black) and installed the orange lighting.
Some of the stations, like Green Park, where they have the Victoria, Piccadilly and Jubilee lines glommed together have a rat’s nest of underground corridors to walk along. The Science Museum has displays of some of the stations so you can see what they had to do to build the additional lines in.
Bank is just impossible. It has the Central Line station, the Northern Line station, and a link to the Circle/District line stations. They used to show this as a zig-zag line on the maps, which should have been a warning as to the length. Now that they have put the City terminus of the DLR in there, I have no idea how complicated this must be!
Holborn is a station to visit. You get a great impression of the depth, when you ride down one long escalator (did you notice they go about 25% faster than the NY escalators?) to get to the Circle line, then down another similar one to get to the Piccadilly line? Also there, you can squint to see the disused platform for the Aldwych shuttle, which I always hoped would be incorporated into something bigger. (I used to be a student at King’s College, which sort of surrounds the old Aldwych station–the Classics Department is right on top!–so I always hoped that they would extend it to Waterloo and make it worthwhile).
And so on.
Just to finish, it wouldn’t be fair to stop without mentioning the LT museum in Covent Garden, well worth an afternoon (as is also St James’ church, just across the Piazza: it’s the one that they huddle under in the first scene of My Fair Lady.) (Yet more history…)
John.
Having made this trip more times than I care to recall, some thoughts:
(and as always, things change, YMMV…)
1). BA seat pitch is slightly better than Virgin.
2). Last time I travelled, BA had big screens with only one visual entertainment choice. But the movies were better (and it was Christmas and they had some old BBC Christmas specials and I was nostalgic, so I’m probably biased here). Virgin has individual screens, but they are microscopic (5" diagonal). If they have upgraded them to the 8" diagonal standard, which appears to be uniform in Business and First Class, then they are probably just as viewable as the big screens at the front of the compartment.
3). BA food was a little better.
4). If you want the best bargain, try Priceline. There is so much extra capacity over the Atlantic, it really works here, especially from the NY area. I once got to London and back for $250 round trip at Christmas, with an almost-empty flight on Air Canada (one change in Toronto). If you want the cheapest, try them! For maximum flexibility, include all the NY airports (=JFK+EWR in practicality) and both LN airports (Heathrow+Gatwick).
5). Heathrow and Gatwick are about the same in terms of time, if you want to take the Piccadilly or the Gatwick train from Victoria. If you want speed from Heathrow, take the train to Paddington (and see how a “Train to the Plane” really ought to be done!
6). Heathrow Terminal 4 has great shopping. There is a Harrods boutique in the Duty Free, so you can bring the stuff back in the signature Green shopping bags!
7). Travel, enjoy! (I’m going Virgin next week on a ticket that cost me $300, Kennedy to Heathrow).
John.
The 3 BA planes I've been on since 4/2000 (2 777's and a 747-400) have been upgraded to 4 class (First, Business, Econ+, Econ) and have seat back video. I think by now all the NY market planes have been upgraded.
Where is the Circus train? Not sighted a Sunnyside...
Someone on another board said that the passenger and concession cars are parked at the LIRR Shea Stadium station.
Yes, I took the Port Washington train yesterday and the circus train is at the Shea Stadium 'yard'. It was broken into three pieces and put on different tracks in the yard. Some of the intermodal flatcars were empty because their containers were taken via truck to Madison Square Garden. I have some photos of it there and on the Garden city secondary being hauled away. I will put them up on www.trainweb.org/nyrail sometime today or tomorrow.
-Dan
YES .... BUT the whole train isn't there. Saturday I saw that some of it came back to Uniondale on the Central Branch (where it was when the circus was in this part of town). I would hazzard a guess that some of the flats may be in NJ, as we heard the elephant walk was thru the Lincoln tunnel.
Mr t__:^)
The circus still travels by train??? I saw Ringling Bros. in the Ocean Center in Daytona Beach about, oh, 15 years ago, but I had no idea if they got there by train, especially since Daytona has no rail service nearby. Do they use freight lines as well? I'm not sure if a circus would be freight or passenger rail, if one had to categorize. Is the train owned by the circus and run over private freight railways' lines? I didn't know they would rent their lines to a private train these days.
Ringling Bros has two complete circuses (circii?), each with a complete train. They run over whatever railroad will take them to their destinations. The red train is doing NY (Meadowlands, Nasau Coliseum, MSG), then going to Philly. The blue train did (or is doing) Baltimore and Washington in the same time frame as the red train doing NY-Philly.
Mr. Robert Bonadonna of LI submitted to me his photos of the circus train in Garden City. I have posted them on a new page at www.trainweb.org/nyrail/lirr/rbbx/rbbx.html. Please correct me if any information I posted is incorrect. Y'all gettin' a sneak peek at a not-yet-public page of my site!
-Dan
www.trainweb.org/nyrail
I have seen some circus train cars on one of the seldom used tracks at the Shea Stadium station.
Saw it at Shea Stadium on the LIRR Saturday.
Just to share the joy... last week, I actually joined the select few who saw it in reality. Did it the "official" way -- i.e., by asking the conductor to let me in for the loop ride (as opposed to hiding). The guy just waved me in without any question or comment. So, legal or not, it is certainly doable!
The thing definitely looks better (in terms of cleanliness) that 80% of the stations in use (well, no surprise here). Overall, quite an impression. One question for the experts. Short of the platform exit, perhaps 1/3 into the platform length, there is a skylight (daylight penetrating into the station is clearly seen). Where exactly in the City Hall Park is the corresponding grate, or whatever that is?
There are three clusters of round glass bricks in City Hall Park, arranged in a semicircle, which follow the station contour. The station itself begins directly in front of City Hall.
Saw it several days ago... I ride the Q every day, more than accustomed to its white-on-orange sign -- so it was quite a surprise to see a black-on-yellow one, like the N and R. I wonder, is it a relic of the old days when the Q ran on the Broadway line? Or something else?
Just wait until July 2001 and you will see a lot of yellow Q's as well as a diamond yellow Q. The roll sign contains these letters.
The color denotes the line (in manhattan) the line is running on. Diamond denotes that is running something special or other than normal. Diamond 6's run express in the bronx for example.
So you think this was not a remnant from the past but a provision for the future?
It's both! The Q ran on Broadway until the Manhattan Bridge south-side closure, circa 1984. It has been on 6 Ave since then, but will return to Broadway (and yellow bullets) this summer.
I think the (Q) moved over to Sixth Ave ("temporarily") in 1988, together with the (B)(D) on the same day the Arhcer Ave extension openned.
:-) Andrew
Please don't put Hippos on the diamond Q over such a minor issue as signs. No hippos. Noooooo sloooooow Hippos on my beloved Q express line.
Finally, the R-68s will be coming back to the Q. Now I'd be able to sit comfortably and on an express train at the same time!
You must be getting the R68 mixed up with the R32! Unless you're really skinny or you have three seats to yourself, those R68 seats are a bit, um, narrow.
(And what makes you think you'll get a seat at all? The R40 has more standing room.)
When the Q ran R40's, all signs were yellow. IIRC the side signs were diamonds and the front signs were circles.
Uh.....It still runs R40s, and it's running with orange signs.
Oops. Before it ran R40's, that is.
Oh! OK.
I do remember seeing a lot of yellow "Q"s for years after the 1988 bridge-flip.
:-) Andrew
The Q ran R-68A and the B ran R40 until just recently in late 1998 the switch was made, and the Q runs R40 with an occasional R32 and the B runs R68A with an occasional R40.
I've never seen an R32 Q.
I once saw an R32 O, at least according to the sign up front. (The other signs all agreed it was an N.)
I see R-32 Q's every now and then. It is rare though.
Peace,
ANDEE
I rode on one in 1997, IIRC. And 1984 - all the while getting dirty looks from my sister as we crawled along the Broadway express tracks while locals zipped past us. Don't forget the R-32s began their illustrious careers on the Q back in 1964.
Check this out: R-32 signed as a Q
It would appear topcities.com has some kind of attitude about ref directly to pages. Anyway, the link seems to work if you enter it into your address bar directly. http://rmmarrero.topcities.com/museum/transit_pictures/18/24.jpg
It happens occassionally. The (Q) (I refuse to color it orange!) runs almost exclusively R40S's, but they are not against using the occassional R32. It's not like the (F) where anything but an R46 is shot on sight!
:-) Andrew
Hey, I rode an R40 F a few weeks ago! An R68 was a few minutes behind.
(Oh, wait, that was a Q and a D running on the F tracks. Whatever.)
Hey! You scared me there! I thought I missed it! Oooh the novelty of riding a slant on the F in Queens!
:-) Andrew
I remember when the slants debuted on the E and F lines in 1968. Who says you can't go home again?
Last time I was at Atlantic Terminal on the LIRR, I noticed that the signs for the (Q) were still yellow, after a dozen years! No point changing them now!
:-) Andrew
The F platform at Stillwell has a yellow B and a yellow D.
Then again, the 97th Street entrance to the 96th Street station on the B/C claims to be served by the C and K. A few blocks away, the entrance to the 1/2/3/9 station at the southeast corner of 96th and Broadway still makes no mention of the 9 (on the side facing south; the side facing north has one of those 1/9 labels, but it's too small).
I have pictures of the first and second.
At the northbound A/C platform at 145th Street, there is still a sign that points downstairs for the C and D trains.
at Beach 98th street on the Rockaway Park Line the Mez sign still reads A and C to brooklyn, and until recently, the Broad Channel mez still had indications for the H train, and at B'way Nassau the A/C tran platform sign reads Uptown and the Bronx, for when the C ran up the concourse
The southbound platform, too. I got a picture there a few weeks ago.
I also have pictures of a Q and a D on the center track at Fort Hamilton Parkway on the F, and of a J train claiming to be an M to 205th Street.
Re the M, I take back what I said. It claimed (on a Sunday night, yet!) to be running from Bedford Park Boulevard to Bay Parkway.
I've seen (L) trains with signs claiming to go from 8th Ave Manhattan to Rockaway Park, Queens.
:-) Andrew
At least it comes close. All it would have to do is go down the long escalator at Broadway Junction and hook up with the A there -- or, alternatively, go down the quick way. (That would, I assume, depend on whether it's an express or a local. Was it an (L) or an ?)
How would my M get up to the Bronx? I suppose it could act as a rush hour B, short-turned at the south end, but then it would surely be signed as a B. It could run onto the Williamsburg Bridge approach and reverse direction, going up the F to the B, but I don't think it can be called an M without actually crossing the bridge. That leaves this route: all the way to the end of the J, up the stairs, back into Manhattan on the E to 7th Avenue, down the stairs, and up the B/D to the Bronx. I suppose it could come into Manhattan on the R or the 63rd Street connection to 7th Avenue, but then it would have to switch to the B/D by going west at street level along 57th from 7th to 8th and then up through the long passageway, and I'm sure someone here would have reported seeing an R42 drive by Carnegie Hall (and, besides, I don't know if subway cars are equipped with unlimited MetroCards). In either case, I rode the aforementioned train from Eastern Parkway to Essex Street; it was obviously on the return trip to Brooklyn.
(Oops. Purim was last month.)
You know? These days when a subway train climbs a stairway or escalator, people don't even look anymore. Are New Yorkers jaded or what!
:-D Andrew
So that's why my ride yesterday was so bumpy! The escalator must have been broken.
LOL
The elevators at 168th Street still take you between the (A)/(B) and (1)/(9)
Hopefully the TA will have the sense to run those on the Q express once the flip happens. People should just listen to whether it is express or local like we do on the 7, no Hippos please!
Um, the 7 has signs distinguishing the (7) from the <7>.
I agree that it would be a travesty for the R68 to return to the Q, but listening to announcements isn't the answer -- announcements are often impossible to understand, and let's not forget the ADA issue.
The circle/diamond signs are a higly unreliable way to tell a local (7) form an express <7>. Unfortunately, you have to listen to station announcements.
Nothing wrong with R68s!!
:-) Andrew
The original R-68 signs were the relics, with only diamond Q's, from when it was still a rush hor special. In 1988, new signs on the 69A's and rebuilt cars had both yellow and orange circles, so it could run on both lines, and all weekday, instead of rush hour. New signs for the 68's will have all three: circles of both colors, and yellow diamonds
I have lived in Brooklyn most of my life,and from what i've guessed from reading some of the posting here, near alot of fellow sub-talkers.(hi CHRIS R30]. Riding the J has been fun for me over the years. Ive seen it at it worst and at its best. My very first subway ride ever was on this line. As a kid, it was easy to get to CONEY ISLAND during the summer because the QJ went there. It was easy to go shopping in JAMAICA because the QJ went to 168st/Jamaica. It was somthing about just standing at the window,watching buildings fly past,every now and then you'll catch an anouncment''QJ TO CONEY ISLAND,or JAMAICA BOUND QJ TO 168ST,MAKING EXPRESS STOPS ONLY TO EASTERN PKY. NEXT STOP MYRTLE/BWAY!!!!'' I think now as an adult,my passion for the rails of subway has not been dulled one bit, but only sharppend by you gentlemen[and ladies]of this board,who feel just like me. Thanks for keep on my toes. KAME OUT
Growing up in Ridgewood, I have the same feelings. Except my feelings are directed towards the M train. The J was my second favorite line, since I always had to make the connection on weekends. I have always felt the J has been underutilized. NYCTA needs to use the middle track on Jamaica Ave, and along Broadway, for express service, to encourage more people from Jamaica to take the J into Manhattan. E train is useless during rush.
Honestly, the M train should be nothing more than a shuttle to Myrtle-Bdwy during days, with connections to the J. All those T/O driving empty M trains to Chambers should be on a line that needs more service.
Then what about local service Myrtle-Marcy and also what about Brooklyn West End service? Should the Z cover the West End and run Myrtle-Marcy exp and the J run local to Broad?
For my own feelings the J as another poster remarked is priceless.It is the longest el left in the city and other than Chicago and some modern systems that are quasi-els the longest in the country.If you count speed out worth riding for anybody. I only wish it was still elevated all the way to l68 st/Jamaica , I used to like the grand entry into "downtown'" Jamaica as it used to be.
The J is one of the most interesting rides in the system. Sure, it's a bit slow -- catch it rush hours when the J/Z skip-stop and the brief express run are in effect.
[catch it rush hours when the J/Z skip-stop and the brief express run are in effect. ]
That so called express ride is pathetic! But I admit the ride is a good lightshow, a signal every 20 yards apart.
Arti
Too bad you weren't on the scene when I was running R1-9 on the J and the expresses ran to Eastern Parkway...I assume they only run exp. to Bway-Myrtle now? The stretch from Bway-Myrtle to Eastern Parkway was great, I used to clock the trains at 47 MPH between Gates and Halsey, and to Chauncey st. But that was when the trains could run their full potential too. The pesty slow curves were another story. The glory that was Rome...haha.
[Too bad you weren't on the scene when I was running R1-9 on the J and the expresses ran to Eastern Parkway...I assume they only run exp. to Bway-Myrtle now? ]
Yep, but probably as slow as the local would have been.
Arti
It's funny, I don't mind the slowness of the J, although I prefer to catch it express and skip-stop. (Then again, I never ride it to actually get anywhere.) The L gets a bit tiresome underground; it's a lot of fun once it surfaces. Other rides that I find boring are all the Coney Island locals and all the IND locals outside Midtown (except for the F/G, soaring above the Gowanus Canal).
I love Lex express during midday, IMO nothing beats it. Of course different concept than IBD.
The funny thing is that locals do annoy me, at the same time the time difference is negligable, hey my timings, using buses in CBD have shown that that's the best mode to go around 20 blocks.
Arti
IBD?
My favorite ride is the express (2, preferably) from 96th to Park Place. I found myself at the rear end of a 3 yesterday, so I watched the speedometer through the cab window, and I was surprised to see a top speed of 37. It sure felt faster than that! (I only rode from 72nd to 42nd -- it probably picks up a bit of speed south of there.)
Honorable mention (for enjoyable fast rides) goes to the A out to the Rockaways and from 59th to 125th, and to the Q in Brooklyn.
I have no interest at all in "invisible" expresses that don't run in view of the local stations they pass -- the 4/5 north of 59th and the B/D/Q between W4 and 34th.
[IBD? ]
B abd N are next too close on the keyboard :-)
[Honorable mention (for enjoyable fast rides) goes to the A out to the Rockaways and from 59th to 125th]
Lately I had a chance to take the A on CPW few times and I must say I was disappointed.
Arti
If you were on a train of R-44s, it's understandable. The CPW express dash just isn't the same without my beloved Thunderbirds strutting their stuff.
I've been on southbound 3 trains which hit 47 mph at 50th St. and kept right on going, maintaining speed until just before where the original mainline turns off. They'd get up to 41-42 on the straightaway south of 34th St. No telling how fast they could go if that straightaway were, say, 3-4 miles long.
Maybe the reason I haven't encountered a speedy Lex express is that I always seem to ride on them during rush hours. Next time, I'm going to try to catch one at midday.
[Maybe the reason I haven't encountered a speedy Lex express is that I always seem to ride on them during rush hours. Next time, I'm going to try to catch one at midday. ]
Definitely, on rush hour they crawl. Off peak, ride worth taking.
Arti
That will be at the top of list of things to do next fall - as long as my flight from Denver doesn't get into LGA five hours late the way it did last year.
B abd N are next too close on the keyboard :-)
Not on a contoured keyboard.
What's a "contoured" keyboard?
What's a "contoured" keyboard?
An allegedly more ergonomically correct keyboard that takes up half again as much desk space, costs more, and proclaims that its owner is too lazy to learn to type properly :-)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Have bo desire to use one.
Arti
B abd N are next too close on the keyboard :-)
Not on a contoured keyboard.
Uh....what's an R69A? Do you mean R68A?
:-) Andrew
And a question from a nonnative English speaker, id est myself: How exactly do you pronounce the names of the streets/tunnels, Montague and Joralemon?
How exactly do you pronounce the names of the streets/tunnels, Montague and Joralemon?
mon-TA-gyoo: o as in not; A as in father; yoo as in few.
jaw-RA-le-mon: aw as in jaw; A as in father; e as in get; o as in not.
And a question from a nonnative English speaker, id est myself: How exactly do you pronounce the names of the streets/tunnels, Montague and Joralemon?
I've usually heard them pronounced as Monta-GYOO and JOR-le-mon.
I always wondered how you pronounce Desbrosses Street and Laight Street.
Day BROSE, as if it was French, or des BRAWSS ez?
LAYT or LIGHT?
www.forgotten-ny.com
When I worked in the vicinity of Laight, the people around it seemed to pronounce it LIGHT.
I've also heard Deh-BROZ-ez. Don't take that as definitive.
I do know the local pronunciations of several streets on which there is disagreement. (All Brooklyn, all as of 20 years ago):
Who do you pronounce:
1) Cortelyou Road (the public and the family pronounce it differently)?
2) Classon Avenue (not what you might expect)?
3) Nostrand Avenue (the media always seem to pronounce it differently from the locals)?
>>>1) Cortelyou Road (the public and the family pronounce it differently)? <<
When I first saw it, looked like a slam-dunk, KORTL' you. Neighborhood denizens say Kor TELL' you, though.
>>>Classon Avenue (not what you might expect)? <<<
Looks like KLASS' un to me.
>>>3) Nostrand Avenue (the media always seem to pronounce it differently from the locals)? <<<
I've only heard NO' strand (not NAWS' strand)...
www.forgotten-ny.com
Pronunciations:
1. Cortelyou Road - (Kor-TEL-u)
2. Classon Avenue - (CLAW-sun)
3. Nostrand Avenue - (NO-strund)
Stef. I hope my breakdown helps...
Montague = Mon-T-GeeYou
Joralemon = Gor-A-Lemon
BMTman
HEY! You got the wrong person! The person who posted is Stefan (not me), although my last name is spelled Steffan. Go figure.......
-Stef
Hey, Stef! Thanks for clarifying things!!
I was wondering why you were asking these weird questions about pronunciation!
I should talk with my Dem Dees and Does...;-)
BMTman
Thanks everyone! With Montague, I for some reason thought of it in the French manner, "mon-TUG"... Some self-re-education needed now :-)
While we are on the subject of pronunciation you do know that Houston ST. is pronounced HOUSE-ton not YOU-ston, right?
Peace,
ANDEE
Think of Romeo and Juliet. Montague vs Capulet.
> While we are on the subject of pronunciation you do know
> that Houston ST. is pronounced HOUSE-ton not YOU-ston, right?
To be sure, I've heard it pronounced both ways... and I do seem to remember that the former is right :-)
> Think of Romeo and Juliet. Montague vs Capulet.
Oh, that's interesting. Having never read it in English, I'd have replied, if asked, that it was Montecchi and Capuletti.
I'm still inclined to pronounce "Houston" as in that city in Texas.
After the Coney Island Adventure with the Sea Beach Fred group, Thurston and I doubled back to Atlantic Avenue where we saw the local Brooklyn-bound track (2/3) loaded with flatcars. One of the flats had a team of workers mixing cement, while a Bobcat was used to excavate under a section of track that was near the middle of the platform.
Apparently, the drainage system at Atlantic is being upgraded. Toward the southern end of the station we saw diesels #80, and #75 with rider car RD 325 (an R-12), sandwiched between the two. What looked like a new flatcar coupled to #80 was loaded with threaded pipe (inner sections), and an adjoining flat carried larger piping (outer sections?).
Obviously, the place had some horrible decibel levels and cement dust in the air constantly. Thankfully, trains arrived (on the express island) at frequent headways.
I snapped off a few shots which I'll forward to D. Pirmann sometime tomorrow.
BMTman
Atlantic Avenue is being totally redone as stated in the 2000-2004 capital program for the TA. They have also released a brochure explaining it. A synopsis is:
"A new glass and granite subway and LIRR terminal will soon rise at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues. The landmark control house will also be renovated. Together, they mark the continuing renaissance of downtown Brooklyn.
Stairways and passageways are overcrowded with riders transferring between the two subway stations and the LIRR.
To make the complex easier and more pleasant to use, we're going to build a new terminal and rehabilitate the passageways, stations, and facilities connecting the Atlantic Av and Pacific St stations with the LIRR."
By the way, know that small corridor for the transferring? This brochure says its width will be doubled plus more.
I picked up a copy of that flyer while waiting for my LIRR connection. Appears that they are going to "open up" the space there & let in some light. Looks like it will be a nice.
Mr t__:^)
This is a most welcome development.
Thanks for the update on the renovation work.
However, what Thurston and I saw at going on at the IRT local track was not related to esthetics, but was more likely some infrastructure work not necessarily related to the overall reconstruction that was mentioned in the brochure. Could be, but I doubt it.
This was more of a maintenance type project related to the trackbed drainage.
BMTman
They are currently working in the passageway between Atlantic and Pacific streets as well as the little used entrance to the D/Q under the Bank. They were in full swing there and on the 2/3 (local) tracks Saturday night 2am to 3am.
I thought another mall was going there. I guess it must be on part of that land, behind the terminal.
(It's taken them so long to decide what to do with it. At one time it was going to be the new Ebbets Field)
The Mall behind the terminal is crap.
I understand that beginning tonight 4/2, for about two weeks, there will be no "J" service over the Willie B. overnights. Does anyone have the G.O. for this job, including first/last trains from either station? Thanks.
Here is what stations knows:
J runs as shuttle from Chambers to Essex. A second J runs from jaamica center to Hewes Street. The train will operate light to Marcy where it will go into service back to Jamaica Center.
Hours are 11pm to 4am. At Marcy, only the Manhattan Bound Platform will be used.
I heard a rumor that the start of service through the Connector will not begin until at least, November, 2001. Please comment.
I think it's openning in August. And in fact it's already open for reroutes, which are unofficially regular on the (F) on nights and weekends, probably right up until the official openning.
:-) Andrew
The B division motormen & conductors are picking jobs currently. This pick is scheduled to go into effect on July 1 when the Manhattan Bridge flip will take place. Queens IND service remains the same as current. We were told this pick will have a 4 month duration. This brings the next pick to November, when the revamped Queens IND service is supposed to take place. But recent developments of a new MTA Chairman and Brooklyn G riders being vocal on the cutback to Court Sq., Gov. Pataki has asked Mr. Kalikow to hold off any Queens IND service changes and to re-study the whole service plan. Don't forget, car availability (lack of R143's) is a major stumbling block.
My prediction:
August-nothing new b/c G riders will make attempts to stop new route layouts, turns out 53rd/60th St tunnels aren't well repaired anyway, service continues as now.
November-okay given that 53rd/60th are in good shape, either G riders will win or lose, if they lose, new proposed service with the V via 53rd goes into effect. If they win, more re-evaluation.
Early-mid 2002-If the G riders won, new route layout proposed and okayed.
Has anyone seen the G.O. for the overnight "J" Shuttle? I am interested in first/last times from either Essex or Marcy Sta.?
The shuttle will run from 11pm to 4am.
I heard a rumor that service through the connector will not begin until at least November,2001. Please comment; thanks.
April 1 has come and gone, and no mention anywhere of a SEPTA strike. This is good news as I can continue to plan to take my family to Philly from Palm Sunday through Tuesday the 10th. To try to tour a city under siege if there were to be a strike is not my idea of a good time.
I had read sometime earlier that a strike could be "anytime after April 1." Does that mean we're still not out of the woods?
The only other obstacle is that I just found out my wife has RELATIVES in Philly!! That's a real trip-killer!
The city division signed a new contract without a strike.
Delaware County's Victory Division (including routes 100, 101 and 102 [P&W, Media and Sharon Hill trolleys]) have a tentative agreement that will be voted on next Sunday. Looks like you're in the clear.
He's in the clear strikewise...Now the only other thing he can hope for, is that his wifes relatives go out of town 8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
At times when the W terminates at Pacific, could it go thru the Montauge Street tunnel and run to Essex/Delancey Streets? It would only run at times when the W would terminate at Pacific under the current plan. What do people think?
That would cost extra money. There is a tower that is not manned on the weekends so no trains run through from Montague tunnel and the cost of Station Agents at Broad St. which is closed.
The tower is on automatic control in the downtown area so that's not a problem.
Only Broad St would have to hire token clerks for full service to be implemented.
600' long train on Nassau Street ? Those W's would have to be 300' long, or borrow 60 footers from other lines.
They'd have to run 8 car R32/40/42's. The 68's would have to go elsewhere. Not that there's a shot in hell of this happening.
Weren't Fulton and Broad lengthened to 600', or am I overestimating the extra space at the ends of the platform?
Even if they were, The main concern is Bowery. People from Grand want to get to BOWERY for Bklyn. Service.
And, I think that Broad has been lengthened to 10 cars.
Which is what my idea does.
No, the Broad and Fulton Street platforms definitely cannot handle 600 foot trains.
The Broad Street station MAY be able to handle nine cars, and that's if the T/O puts his cab into the mouth of the tunnel (i.e. 63rd Drive).
The can all handle 9 cars becuase they were built to handle 8 Standards.
The platforms at Fulton Street are 542 feet long, and those at Broad Street are 532 feet long.
David
The Weekend "W" should be made up of Slant R40 which would come from the Diamond "Q". Just like some of the weekend "B" currently is.
wayne
"The Weekend "W" should be made up of Slant R40 which would come from the Diamond "Q"."
No, the whole idea is to minimize the # of R-40s running off-hours. That's why they went from the B to the Q, from a full 24/7 line to a weekday line, and those things are invisible on the weekends. There can't be any more than 1-2 extra on the B anyway.
The tower is on automatic control in the downtown area so that's not a problem.
So why don't J trains run at least to Fulton on weekends? The J now ends just shy of a major transfer point. (Yes, I know I can change from the J to the 4/5 at Chambers to get there, but that's an unnecessary annoyance.)
Only Broad St would have to hire token clerks for full service to be implemented.
So use HEETs; anyone without a MetroCard could buy one at an MVM or at the adjacent 4/5 station.
Alternatively, bypass the station -- it's certainly not a major weekend destination and it's not a transfer point.
>>>>So why don't J trains run at least to Fulton on weekends? The J now ends just shy of a major transfer point. (Yes, I know I can change from the J to the 4/5 at Chambers to get there, but that's an unnecessary annoyance.)<<<<
I agree, they should offer service to Fulton Street on the weekends. But look on the bright side, a few years back, the J trains used to terminate at Canal Street. Now THAT'S an annoyance.
>>>>So use HEETs; anyone without a MetroCard could buy one at an MVM or at the adjacent 4/5 station.<<<<
The union would vehemently oppose this.
I agree, they should offer service to Fulton Street on the weekends. But look on the bright side, a few years back, the J trains used to terminate at Canal Street. Now THAT'S an annoyance.
It sure was, but I don't think that lasted more than a year. Before that, the J ran to Broad at all times.
The union would vehemently oppose this.
Why? Nobody's closing a station that's currently open; I'm simply suggesting that the TA reopen a station that's currently closed, but without reopening the token booths.
Hire station agents. Who is this susposed to benefit? Chinatown or the MTA?
The M should run at all times to Bay Parkway.
If the W can't run to Manhattan on weekends, it should be cancelled entirely and the M extended to Stillwell instead.
All times?
Maybe it was just that one time I rode the B from CI. But we waited for an M to go into service at Bay Parway, but it was the slowest ride of all the lines from Ci during rush hour. If the M were to run all times, the B should go express.
=)
There's no reason the M should be slower than the B (aka W). It might even be faster due to car type.
The W could run express peak direction on the center track. It would stop at 62nd (transfer to the N) and Bay Parkway. Things might get a bit messy at BP with M's terminating from the local track while W's switch from the express track to the local track -- maybe it would work better (although it would be less desirable) for the M to run express and the W to run local.
This extended "M"/beefed up West End service is a very good idea.
If they use slants on the "W" then they will dust the "M" unless the lead motor's an R40M.
And the express service should also stop at 9th Avenue. The express service should reverse directions between 1230PM and 1PM.
Can't they get SOMEBODY, ANYBODY to fill the shifts at Broad Street on the weekends? I mean, it's a title job, Station Agent; SOMEBODY must be qualified for it - Hey Subway Buff, would you like a regular slot?
Aren't there sights to see in the Financial district on the weekends?
wayne
Thanks.
I'm afraid Broad Street really isn't terribly useful on weekends. Either bypass it or open it as a self-service-only station.
The booth at broad Street is currently a part-time booth. It is open 24 hours except weekends when it is closed. They would need RDO coverage for that booth for 3 tours plus lunch relief covergae for 3 tours.
Also, that job would then have to be put on the pick which is seniority based.
(Fulton Street's J booths are also part-time and would need the same coverage.)
Could you leave the J Fulton Booths closed on weekends?
Yes. Those booths could be left closed -all we'd nedd there would be to have the gates from the 2/3/A/C/4/5 left open.
Slants on the Center West End Track?!?
Peak Express Direction R40S MUs??!?!
Improved "M" service with R40Ms?!?!!
Let me pinch myself...OUCH
Damn knew it was too good to be true. But it's a GREAT idea.
Things shouldn't get messy at Bay Parkway with M locals terminating there. This pattern is currently practiced on the 6 line in the Bronx with 6 locals terminating at Parkchester and 6 expresses continuing to Pelham Bay. It could be done on the West End line too.
I was thinking of that, too. That is why I think my weekend W should only run weekends, not middays.
The only reason it wouldn't be able to run on weekends is the Bridge being completely closed (South side open weekdays only). In that case, only the would run through the tunnel. They might barely have room for a fourth line, but they never do it.
Will the bridge be closed on weekends? I don't think that's anything more than conjecture on this board.
I had heard something like that a while back, plus there is no other reason they'd terminate the W at 36th St (Or Pacific?). Perhaps it's all conjecture. I know my source is shaky (can't even remember who it was)I'm not sure where the shuttle rumor came from. Someone just posted it within the past couple of weeks, and without saying it, they could be planning only part time service, but don't want to alarm anyone any more than they already are.
Better: leave the M where it is, run the J all the way out to Bay Parkway. Less cars needed for same service. Why off-hours run one service to Broad and the other to Bay Parkway when you can run one to Myrtle and the other to Bay Parkway without annoying too many people?
Simply extending the M train to Bay Parkway 24/7 would probably be easier (switching,etc). Still better than what the TA has in mind though.
---Qtraindash7----is also at aol.com----->
They could terminate the J at Myrtle Avenue, run the M to Coney Island, kill the W.
Which is better for Brooklyn though, the M or the J. Why can't the J run all the way out to Brooklyn? Also, when and why was the decision made to replace the J/QJ with the M on Brighton?
If the M is running there now, it is easier to extend it on weekends instead of the J. It is less confusing.
The M links two Hasidic Jewish areas now that it runs on 4th Avenue. The QJ became the J and M became the "QM" in order to cut service on the Southern Division via Nassau Street. There are fewer M's than J's.
It happened in the mid-70's.
Yes, it links the Belzer Hassidim with the Satmar Hassidim. Both groups do NOT like each other. Figure that one out. they both do not care too much for the Lubavitchers on Eastern Parkway. I am not making this up, because one of their number told me the deal. I am glad to be neutral in that argument.
Boro Park is a mixed Orthodox crowd. It's not all chassidic (it's mostly not, AFAIK), and the multiple groups of chassidim live there.
Williamsburg was once also pretty diverse. My father grew up there and he's certainly not a chassid. Now it's essentially all Satmar.
Boro Park is Bobov mostly. Boro Park also has the largest birth rate and population rate in the City, if not the State. This reason alone should get the TA to increase "M" service.
The largest chassidic group in Boro Park may be Bobov, but there are lots of non-chassidim there as well (unlike Williamsburg and Crown Heights).
True, but Williamsburg has a large Spanish influx, and Crown Heights a large Jamaican/Carribean population. The other residents of Boro Park other than the Bobov are from Central Russia.
Yes, it links the Belzer Hassidim with the Satmar Hassidim. Both groups do NOT like each other. Figure that one out. They both do not care too much for the Lubavitchers on Eastern Parkway. I am not making this up, because one of their number told me the deal. I am glad to be neutral in that argument. To each his own.
Last night the RCI at V.C. informed me that 40 Pelham R62A's will be relocated at 240 yard (10 are already on the road op. car 1665)plus several are to go to Livonia with the 3 possibly running 10 cars. (in TA speak increasing service) The rest of the fleet is to be sent to Corona yard for use on the Flushing line
I will post more information as I become aware of it.
Woo hoo! So when can we expect to see them on the (7)?
We have to wait for the 142's to be a majority of the operating fleet at Pelham, since we all know how well they run.
That probably means the summer (assuming that there is enough storage)
I'll sure miss the front window of the Redbirds on the 7. Well there's one plus, the A/C on the R62A's should be a lot better than on the Redbirds.
---Qtraindash7----is also at aol.com----->
This weekend there was express service only uptown from Times Square to 72nd. The conductor on the '3' I was on yesterday was quite informative in notifying us of this, and advised those wishing to change for 50th, 59th or 66th Streets to turn around at 96th rather than 72nd.
Seventy-Second, he explained, does not offer a crossover, and turning around there might require arguing with the token clerk who might or might not let people back in the downtown side- unless, he added, you're an attractive female. That got a few chuckles and a disgusted "Yeah, really!" from a male in my car.
But shouldn't the station department KNOWS there's such a GO, and have somebody at 72nd to hand out transfers, or allow people to cross over? There have been times that such a GO has been on the Lex, and transfers are offered at 86th Street- but then other times when we're advised to turn around at 59th or 125th, depending on direction.
Of course, too many people ASSUME you can always turn around at an express stop, just the way they assume every transfer point is an express stop. Just ride the Flushing-bound '7' express past 74th-Broadway some PM rush hour and watch the panic set in.
As far as letting people turn around where there's no crossover, the conductor's quip about being allowed through if one is an attractive female is all too true. Many times I've seen women con the token clerk at 86th/Lex, 72nd/Broadway, Briarwood/Van Wyck, Astor Place and other such crossoverless stations into letting them back in free by acting tearful or confused: "I don't know where I'm going"; "I took the wrong train the wrong way"; "My card ran out"; "I don't have any more money." The clerk, whether male (can't resist a pretty face) or female (must show solidarity to her own) ALWAYS seems to relent.
NEVER have I seen a clerk let a male passenger through in such a siutation.
The Hagstrom subway map used to mark each station without a crossover with an asterix. Might help in the official MTA map did that.
But then how do you explain Nevins Street- and what does the clerk let you do when the crossunder is closed?
According to the announcement sheet given to the C/R's transfers were given out at 79st. I also heard that stations dept. were letting people crossover at 72nd. C/R's usually will tell people to change at 96st in case of a change in operating procedures.
That's right. I was on the northbound plat at Times Sq directing taffic during yetserday's GO, and was told by a Supervisor that folks could get off at 72nd or 79th Sts. If you got off at 79th St, then passengers would obtain a ticket to cross the street and re-enter the subway without paying again.
This didn't go without incident. There was at least one annoyed cutomer who described the GO as outrageous. My response - that's unfortunate. A contractor was working over the track, what does a customer feel they should do, shoot the messenger?
-Stef
The Station Agents at 72nd should have received a bulletin advising to issue G.O. Tickets to allow access to the other side. To avoid a dispute just go t0 96th Street which does have a crossunder.
Yeah, but who wants to go to 96th St? Tickets were being handed out at 79th St to cross the Street, which I believe was difficult for some folks anyway. I sent some of the passengers to take the A and C for 50 and 59th Sts.
-Stef
Right. but I have done just that myself(before working for transit).
79 is one other option as is the IND- Good job!
I exited one side and jumped the other. I really don't see the need in handing out block transfers for walking two feet. That space is so cramped that having one person give transfers out and another take them would crowd the room too much to allow anyone to move, and anyway both sides are so close to each other they may as well leave the gate open and the hell with it, free entry for downtown side at this station.
>>>I exited one side and jumped the other. <<<
Yes, but by "jumping the other" you risked a ticket from an overzealous cop, be careful.
Peace,
ANDEE
No cops anywhere in mezz. If there were, they probably heard my 'Yo, I'm crossin' over'.
I'm sure another commonly heard excuse is "Nobody told me it was an express".
Personally, I think it's outrageous that passengers who are forced out of their way by a GO are then required to go even further out of their way to backtrack to wherever they're trying to go.
As a matter of policy, the first possible transfer point should be made available as a transfer point -- be it with paper transfers, with a MetroCard transfer (for trips from the affected stations in one direction and for all trips started within two hours in the other direction), or with simply free access to the station.
In this case, the GO calls for passengers to transfer at 79th. That's just plain stupid; 79th is the typical IRT local station, with northbound trains on one side of Broadway and southbound trains on the other, while 72nd has a single stationhouse with northbound and southbound turnstiles a few feet from each other. It would be trivially easy to station a guard by the turnstiles to allow free entry to anyone who just exited from the other side -- or, for that matter, to build a temporary passageway (chain link fences would do) connecting one turnstile on the southbound side to one turnstile on the northbound side, leaving the southbound one unlocked. (Yes, that means that anyone trying to get to the token booth from the north side of the stationhouse would have to -- gasp! -- go outside and walk around the little building, which might take a whole 15 seconds.)
I hope I'm not insulting someone on this board by saying this, but whoever writes up the GO's is an idiot. When northbound trains were running express from 72nd to 96th, the GO instructed riders to transfer at 59th, when 66th has a perfectly good underpass. The recurring GO on the B in Brooklyn -- running express on the Sea Beach -- doesn't indicate whether it runs express or local, but does claim that trains stop at 62nd-NUA (in reality, they don't, but this same GO has been posted for over a month). And this week's GO on the 6 in the Bronx is listed on the TA's web page as taking place April 2-6 with regular service April 4, 5, and 6 -- why not just list it as taking place April 2 and 3?
It would also be nice if every GO were explicitly posted and announced. Both today on the 6 and on March 25 on the B, there were neither signs nor announcements on the trains I rode; the latter case generated a carful of angry passengers, one of whom was trying to go only one stop on the B.
The only thing that is closed at Nevins is the stairwell to the Manhattan bound platform(9pm-6am). You must use the NL/FLA stairwell, then use the crossunder to get to the Manhattan bound platform.
The only thing that is closed at Nevins is the stairwell to the Manhattan bound platform(9pm-6am). You must use the NL/FLA stairwell, then use the crossunder to get to the Manhattan bound platform.
There was a special "Manhattan By Subway and Bus" map available for tourists before the MTA's The Map design came in. It had an X in the dot for all stations (local or express) lacking crossovers. Last version was printed 1998, I picked it up at Croton Harmon MNRR station in 1999.
Here is a PHOTO of the gang from Sundays tour, courtesy of BMTMan.
From left to right, Victor, Danilm, SB Fred, BMTJeff, B Newkirk (holding sign), Rosanne (Garys wife), Qtraindash7, Gary Wengeroff and Thurston (showing his good side) PHOTOGRAPHER DOUG DIAMOND (BMTMAN)
Peace,
ANDEE
PS-more photos later
Thanks for uploading the shots, Andee -- they actually look better than when I took them!
Looks like Bill "Newkirk" is trying for the SubTalk 'Ham of the Year Award'...;-)
BMTman
For some more pics CLICK HERE
Peace,
ANDEE
What kind of camera??
And at 5'1 (5'2 is pushing it) I'm the shortest of most everybody. It definately is not a good thing when it comes to things in the romance department! :-(
Damn I haven't had a girlfriend since I was 16 and she dumped me. 25 years old now it's really starting to eat me now. I'm 1 for 6 (5 strikes, turn downs) All the cute girls seem to want near 6', even if they are 5'2 or under.
If only women were like trains, since trains don't care who's operating them. :-)
Well small cabs like on the Redbirds don't like big people. I've seen big guys operating from those little Redbird cabs, it looks hard.
What subway trains do have the smallest cabs anyway?
John, don't you think you're limiting your 'range' of available women by focusing on height? I bet there are women who might be interested in you but might actually be taller than you. It's more a physcological wall that you have to get over, I'd suppose(DAMN -- I'm sorry if I'm sounding like Dr. Ruth!)
[If only women were like trains, since trains don't care who's operating them.]
That's a loaded statement...
[What subway trains do have the smallest cabs anyway?]
Probably the trains that run in Osaka or Tokyo...;-)
BMTman
Hey Q7, that's the girls problem not yours. That's why so many of them end up in dead end relationships, because they look at a guy's looks, and buns, and whatever, instead of looking at character. Don't worry, you will meet that one special person. As for those other girls who dumped you, the hell with them. They probably aren't even worth your concern. Take care.
Well put. If they're not interested, it's their loss. I know my receding hairline has turned off more than one female, and that's too bad for her.
Absolutely loaded question: Is the semaphore in the photo real, a fan prop or what? If it's real and that low on a platform, it's trash prone. Besides, why is it sideways to the platform/track?
Confused folks want to know.
The semaphore in question IS real, but is decommissioned. It was last in use on the IRT New Lots Line (New Lots Ave. I believe). The signal was removed from their in the 60's I believe and was placed in front of the Stillwell Tower dedicated to the system's signalmen (there is a plaque attached to the front of it).
BMTman
I hate to admit it, but I remember when that semaphore was actually in use at the south (east) end of the New Lots Ave station on the
Livonia Ave IRT. I saw it from the railfan window on a low V in 1962
as we pulled into the terminus, and that was the LAST time I visited that station, even though I still live in NYC. I did ride the 14 St Canarsie line to Rockaway Parkway recently and was surprised to see the ramp connection from both the Canarsie line as well as the Livonia Ave El going to the Linden Track Fabrication Shop.
A few dwarf semaphores survived up until a few years ago at East 180th Street yard. There might be some still out there hidden on the Woodlawn-Jerome line, or the Pelham line, but I have that funny old feeling that they went into retirement. That old semaphore on the New Lots line was special, and it can still be seen in the Transit Museum. Speaking about equipment from the old days, there were some blingd trips on the Woodlawn line just North of Bedford Park Blvd. were they all taken out?
Go to the Transit Museum in Brooklyn. That is where it is, but it is not operational. There is a plaque on it giving the details.
Well if you do decide to go to the Transit Museum, don't go on Monday April 23rd (or at least call ahead). According to the TA, they are conducting a GO at the Transit Museum on this day from 9am to 2 pm. Power will be off on all the tracks due to ParaTransit training.
The Museum isn't usually open on a Monday, so customers will not be permitted into the facility.
Para transit training? Aww shucks, I thought maybe they were moving some cars around...
-Stef
I think zman is just hanking at our chains on this one.....;-)
BMTman
No BMTman, it's true. I'm not hanking your chain here (and if I was, I wouldn't even know that I was even doing it. I've never hanked a chain before, but I have hanked a kerchief).
Sorry, I was on a binge again. I meant 'yanking'....:-)
BMT(stoned)man
What are you trying to say, that if you took a urine sample it'd be glowing?
Well, it's nice to meet all of you. And now I know who the friendly Thurston of Queens Surface fame looks like (I haven't gotten any email from you lately).
Ron, et., al., go check out the "Field Trip" reports you'll see more shots of the usualy suspects & some nice photos of equipment locally and elsewhere, e.g. Boston/Sea Shore includes PCCs in Boston & Sea Shore's "A train" with a couple of SubTalkers "assuming the position".
For those who haven't poked around elsewhere on this site there is a load of information, e.g. where are those old cars now, FAQ, abandoned stations, "R" numbers explained, station by station walk throughs.
Mr t__:^)
I sure get envious of these trips when you guys can get together like that!
I have about as much chance of getting back to NY as you guys have of ever seeing the 15 cent fare again.
(Hey Thurston, How come you look away every time a picture is taken? You did the same thing on Jeff's picture in the Tripper.)
[You did the same thing on Jeff's picture in the Tripper.]
First, for those that don't know, the Tripper is Branford's monthly newsletter.
Second, the BMTman & I got assigned the job of changing the heater element in the shop's water heater. While I had my hands in the water & muck and the BMTman was standing with vacuum hose in hand SubTalker & fellow Branford member Jeff snuck up to take a photo. And you thought the only getting dirty up there was on subway cars ?
I was very happy to learn that the heater actually worked after these two Nortons gave it their best shot ;-)
BTW, If Sea Beach Fred & 8th Ave Steve can make it back here just for fun, why not you? April Fools is now gone, but I sure we can come up with another date & group of your friends here to take you for a ride.
Mr t__:^)
Well, I am planning to be in the city during the week of October 21, so perhaps a few of us can get together then.
Why am I NOT shocked that Sea Beach Fred is the one with a tan. You didn't need to place a caption to identify him that's for sure. LOL.
zman179: It's a combination of the sunny California sun and my Italian heritage that makes me stand out as the bronzed beast that I am. Funny, eh? Well, glad you could pick me out. I wish you could have come. Your name came up two or three times during the trip. Maybe we'll touch base the next time I'm in town. It was quite a day.
I wish that I could have come as well. Maybe next time.
BTW, when my name came up, was there a lot of cursing and spitting by the other SubTalkers?
No. Not us. But we ran into a number of C/R's who claimed to have worked with you on the Eastern Division. Boy were they PISSED!!!
Some grumbling among them about you hitting the brakes like a madman...and dumping for no reason at all...even an attempt to 'pop a wheelie' with a set of slant R-40's??!!
You're a regular wildman....:-)
BMTman
Damnit those C/R rookies. That was a FRIGGIN R42 that I tried to "pop-a-wheelie" with. Dey cant's identeefy nuttin me tell ya.
Oh wait a minute, after I hit the barn wall it did have a slant on it, so I can see where they got confused. My apologies.
That pick's killing ya buddy ... that was a 40M that you reverted back to factory condition. :)
Too bad that you weren't able to go on the Field Trip. You could have pointed the spot out that you took a little nap at (pointed with your finger, NOT YOUR HEAD).
Heh. It was near the circuit breaker house on the layup tracks, Stillwell ... if that's still there, you've got the location. And I'm older now, a WEE bit saner but not by much. :)
LOL! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
:-)
We gotta stop these posts -- my hides can't take much more! Or my kidneys....
BMTman
I like madmen T/O's and engineers, that's the way I'd operate. Pushing the timers and plowing into stations at speed and then slamming the brakes. It especially feels good on a Slant R40 or R32, even a 46 aint bad.
Actually R46 operators have a tendency to slam the brakes and I just love it!
Ooookay....
After I said goodbye to you I went back onto the No. 7 train and went to the Main St. Flushing station at the end of the line. This is the first time I've seen the station since it has been renovated. They did a terrific job on it. It used to be a terrible station because you used to have to WALK through the trains in order to get from one platform to the other. You don't have to do that any more and the station is much cleaner than it used to be. then took the No. 7 back to 74th St. Roosevelt Ave and changed to an "E" train which happened to have been a set of R-46s to 7th Ave. in Manhattan and walked to the Central Park Carousel to take a ride on it. Then I went back to Grand Central Terminal and took the 5:20 Hudson Line local back to Hastings-on-Hudson.
BMTJeff
Hey, zman that's pretty funny since Sea Beach Fred was darker than me -- and I have a 'natural tan'! :-)
BMTman
Many thanks for the great photos!
Hey there Victor ! Don't be a stranger here !
Enjoyed your company & the reminiscing of things that some of us have only heard about.
Mr t__:^)
Look closely and you can see the Wonder Wheel ... too bad the shot missed the Cyclone or Fred would have wanted to make a 4 X 6 poster out of it.
Mr t__:^)
>>> Here is a PHOTO of the gang from Sundays tour <<<
After seeing the photo I understand why New Yorkers want the end doors on trains unlocked so they can flee from roving gangs that hang out on the subways. :-^)
Tom
Thankfully we were spared the scariest character, BMTMan, who is behind the camera. 8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
Well it looks like out friend Phil is in for a turn of good luck as Harrtford CT is proposing a light rail line. The line would connect both the east and west sides of the CT river, have 16 stops and connect the proposed Rentschler Field development, the new University of Connecticut football stadium, Adriaen's Landing and the Meadows Music Theatre. Price estimates are about 120 million $'s but CT already has a down payment in $33 million dollars in federal money that was allocated for an airport monorail project that never got built.
The state is already spending more than $500 million at Adriaen's Landing and $91 million for the new UConn stadium. Lawmakers are also asking the state to spend an estimated $25 million to $30 million to construct two new roads inside Rentschler Field, and a fly-over ramp that would bring commuters directly from Interstate 84 to their jobs at the office park. The 16-stop transit loop, in essence, will be competing with the fly-over project for limited public funds.
How many cars are on order? Is it going to be those Low Floor LRV's or what?
R40S #4200
Since it is still in the proposal stage, this discussion is mote.
Peace,
ANDEE
I'm on the distribution of a weekly elect. newsletter that covers the tri-state area. They are only talking about rail for NH/Hartford/Springfield, some buses & road work, i.e. I've seen NOTHING recently about light rail for Hartford.
A East - West line would seem to fill a need there, as well as a North - South line on existing ROW. I can't think of a place they could run the East - West line except on the streets ... that should give the NIMBYs a way to kill the idea.
Mr t__:^)
According to my Arrow Street Map of Greater Hartford, there's a railroad ROW parallel to Tolland Turnpike in East Hartford. It crosses the Connecticut River into Hartford and connects to Amtrak's Inland Route. It would allow for allow for a completely off-street route from Manchester to Downtown Hartford on an existing ROW.
You mind sharing the name/address of the e-newsletter? Thanks a lot.
Do you have any links for more info, or a map of the proposed route?
I only know of a Hartford Courant article:
http://www.ctnow.com/scripts/editorial.dll?render=y&eetype=Article&eeid=4277966&ck=&ver=2.5
I'd have to say that the planned light rail for Hartford is a poor idea. Its essential flaw is that it's been proposed for the wrong reasons.
As I've noted here before, the Hartford area was hit very hard by the "Great Recession" of the early 1990's, and more to the point has never fully recovered. Recent census results show that Hartford County grew by only 1% during the 1990's, a dismal rate for an area that still has plenty of developable land remaining. I would surmise that the number of jobs in Downtown Hartford today is less than in the late 1980's.
While Hartford can have fairly heavy traffic during rush hour, it's not all that bad, certainly not in comparison to many other transit-less cities. Obviously the sluggish population and jobs growth has kept traffic manageable. There really is no need for a costly light-rail system (no doubt the $120 million estimate will rise) based strictly from a transportation viewpoint. What I suspect, however, is that state and local politicians figure that the line will help spur economic growth - a "Field of Dreams" scenario. Granted, the line probably will help somewhat in that respect, but it's unlikely to be any sort of cure-all for the region's economic woes. Surely there must be other ways of spending that money that will produce a greater payback in terms of growth and jobs.
I'd do it a LOT differently:
A) Starting at Rentschler Field, near Pratt's Engineering Office Building (A or was it B?) , start north toward Silver Lane, going through the business park, and houseing that's planned (heh). Stop at the uCON stadium, and then go up Roberts, toward Burnside., Go left at Burnside, toward Main Street. this would service numerous housing/apartment blocks, and the local tattoo place, and a 7-Eleven. Turn south at Main, and go toward CONn Blvd. Turn right, towards the Founder's Bridge (Or is it Charter Oak?). Hit Auto Row, then go over the bridge. Bear left at the Old State House (tm) and then turn right on main. Follow the T bus route to Blue Hills Ave, and keep going until it splits into multiple T routes. End it there.
B) Eventually, build extensions off the T route to cover the V, K, and Q lines. At the point where these lines break into multiple routes, terminate the trolley, and run (free? Certianly free transfer...) busses to finish the lines off.
C) Even more eventually, head south on main in Hartford and cover some routes that way.
D) Avoid the stillborn Adrian's landing mess, and the CT Expo Center.
E) Possibly consider the Griffins line to Bloomfield, or better yet, running along the slAmtrak ROW to Windsor Locks, and hitting the airport up there.
F) Wow. A semi-useful system, as opposed to a useless tourist attraction.
G) I'm not sure WHY CT is even building a football stadium on what's effectively a toxic waste dump. Hartford couldn't even keep a third rate hockey team. I don't see uCON football as a huge attraction either. And you're not going to get any NFL action here either.
H) As to why CT hates rail in general? Beats me, you'd think TilCON, etc, would be glad to build/pave/pour anything (hey, watch that child!). Oh well...
UConn's football program is now NCAA Division I-A after being a charter member of Division I-AA. A Division I-A school has to have a stadium with a minimum capacity of 25,000 (IIRC). Memorial Stadium on the Storrs campus seats only 16,000, and they must have felt it would be impossible to expand it (it butts right up against Gampel Pavilion). UConn was granted an exemption while a new stadium could be built. Apparently, there wasn't any room at Storrs for a new stadium, although I don't necessarily agree.
Back on topic, I remember seeing old streetcar tracks in the middle of US 5 through East Hartford right where it passes under I-84. This was back in the early 80s; the tracks have since been paved over.
test
TEST
TESTING
IF YOU CAN READ THIS THEN SUB TALK WORKS
SUBTalk has been working since saturday around 1130 am thanks to D Pirmann.
Peace,
ANDEE
and..PS turn OFF your HTML tags
Just be thankful he closed the <MARQUEE> tag...
(You're all going to hate me for this one...)
Or THIS would have happened:
LOL-- wait i have to wait for it to come around again 8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
I Was jus checking To See if it was REALLY WORKING.
And you STILL need to TURN OFF your HTML tags!!!!
I dunno when it ends, but it begins at 8am. It is for public as well as employees. I hear that to get there, you must use the Avenue X entrance served by the F line. I talked to someone from Video at the 370 jay street office. They said its this saturday the 7th at 8am. Hope to see you there
I thot this up last night. I guess you know you're a transit geek when an idea comes to you while you're spending "quality time" with your girlfriend, but anyhoo, here it is:
Rebuild the old Met connection between the Douglas and the Lake. Rebuild the Medical Center station on the Blue Line so Congress trains stop directly below Douglas trains, with an Elevator between the two. Then add a station on the old Met el to serve Chicago Stadium (think of all the new ridership). Run the Douglas line as a green line train. Douglas trains would go to Jackson Park, Lake trains would go to Englewood. Douglas-Jackson park trains would follow the south and west sides of the loop tracks, while Lake-Englewood trains would follow the north and east sides of the loop as they do now. This would give Green line riders a one-seat ride to any point on the loop, plus simplify operations: The Green line would be the only el route with two different tails. Then you could just max out service on the Congress line to connect with O'Hare. It also means increased service for Lakers and Jackson Parkers.
Another benefit of this would be if the reconstruction of the Medical Center took place right now. If the station was arranged as said above, Douglas trains could operate as a shuttle without negatively affecting Congress service while portions of the Douglas line were being rebuilt (let's face it, the entire thing is going to need to be overhauled in the next 20 years before it falls down flat and crunches a bunch of parked cars underneath it).
So you get simplified operations, one-seat Green line service to every station on the loop, Chicago Stadium service that should attract quite a few thousand fans every time the Blackhawks or Bulls are playing, and Douglas riders get a daylight ride into downtown - the way it was meant to be.
Questions, comments, criticisms, or suggestions?
Sure, I'll bite.
First, your girl friend needs to....well....you got too much time on your hands. LOL.
If the city and the CTA wanted to serve United Center, they could have added a station to the Green Line a long time ago. Since they didn't...they don't want to.
Blue Line rehab money is almost a "done deal." So don't worry about the Douglas PK branch.
Rather than your plan...please start and finish plans that have been on the boards for decades: put transit in corridors already designated; ie: Crosstown Corridor, South Chicago AV, extend Yellow Line, extend Red Line to 103rd, substitute "L" for Lake Front Metra Electric.
And last but not least, in Chicago, its called the "L", not "El."
Every five years an air mapping is done for these corridors with nothing to show but stacks of photo map books.
David Harrison
<Electric. >>
surely you jest. The IC even it its current form is one of the best. Could it be improved? Yes. Start by integrasting the CTA farecards and make any ride within city limits flat CTA single fare.
How can you call Metra Electric (IC) good service. First, the CTA Lakefront Projection is the Electric from downtown to South Chicago AV only; not the main to University Park. In this city area you have only a handful of inbound am rush hour trains and outbound pm, and at other times one train an hour, if not one per 90 minutes. Thats not rapid transit service by any definition.
We won't mention the 25 mph down the middle of the street operation that is called the South Chicago Branch, because frankly, neither does the CTA.
A more ambitious proposal would be to extend this Lake Front Line north beneath the river into Streeterville.
The biggest on-the-books plan is for the Crosstown which would start at Dempster (Yellow Line); go south to Jeff Park (Blue Line); continue south to Midway (Orange Line); turn east to connect with the Red Line at about 75th ST.
But in the city, Metra is far from the "best." My two Lincolns!
David Harrison
What is now the Metra Electric within in the city of Chicago is a mere shadow of what it was 50 years ago. At that time there were many more stations, and the line ran more like a rapid transit than a suburban rail operation. There were 6 tracks between 53rd St. and Roosevelt Rd, and there were locals to 53rd making stops approx. every half mile or so, running every 15-20 min. during non-rush hours and every 10 min during rush hours.
Even the much maligned South Chicago branch, with its street-level running, had non-rush hour service every 20 minutes into the late 60s.
-- Ed Sachs
actually midday headways slipped to half hourly in the late fities. in turn 'Specials' to/from the So. Chicago Branch were downgraded in 1965. All of this after the 5/6 tracks were removed in the late fifties. All that said, it wass still a splendid system. When I used it for a Loop job in 64/5 I was late to work twice only--and one of those was after a blizzard with all trains running at restricted speed. In 1967 when there had been a monster blizzard the IC ran as opposed to CTA whose abandonned buses could be seen drifted over on the streets. and the L was down for a day.
The one guy's comment about the UIC Halsted makes a lotta sense. Okay, so the plan is a dud. It wasn't like I was supposed to be thinking about "rail transit" at that time anyway...
What most of Metra needs is electrification - the diesel routes could be so much faster if they ran good EMUs instead of push-pull diesel. A lot of Metra lines have stops too close together for diesel...it would make more sense with electrics. Personally I'd like to see the former C&NW-West line electrified, but that could have something to do with me having grown up in Wheaton...
as someone with a destination signbox from an IC Electric (set to South Chico Special South Shore District) in my dining room next to a similar box from a 6000 (set to Jackson Pk Howard B) I am for more electrification. I would probably start with the ex RI lines and connect the IC Blue Island to their main. Wheaton, eh think CA&E
Wheaton, eh think CA&E
Hmmm, and what about the thousands of joggers, stroller-pushers, professional cyclists, and parent-child duos on bikes that use the old CA&E grade every day?
I'm sorry man, but a lot of my fondest childhood memories are of riding on the Prarie Path, or enjoying some DQ sitting on the old truss bridge over the C&NW West line and watching the outbound Metra trains roll underneath. And childhood memories aren't all of it, either. When I visited Chicago in 1998, I really appreciated the speed with which I could travel on the basically grade-seperated bike path (minimal intersections). I could literally get from my old neighborhood (Winfield Estates, at the corner of County Farm and Geneva Road) to my old best friend's house (A resident of South Wheaton, near where the prarie path crosses Butterfield Road) faster on my bike than my folks could in the rental car (they had to wait at multiple stoplights, while I had to wait at only two - the rest of the prarie path intersections are with residential streets which you don't even have to stop at).
I'm all for rail transit, but not at the expense of pedestrian and bicycle use. Nope. Electrify the C&NW, but I think any attempt at a C&AE rebuild would create more political strife than you can possibly imagine...and I can assure you I'd be with the anti-rail people on that one.
Interesting tidbit - Most people don't know that there is a spur off the old C&AE main (now the prarie path) that connected to West Chicago. It was actually originally part of the Galena, the first coal-hauling railroad from Chicago to the west (i think it was started in the early 1800s). About half of the ROW is gone (subdivisions cover it), and most of the rest has been paved over and become city streets in West Chicago, but there is a short segment of original grade and ballast between the C&AE main and County Farm Road. It's surrounded by trees (like a 40-foot windbreak), owned by ComEd (they have lines running along it), and it was an awesome place to build tree forts and play army. Aaah, the memories...
I'm not saying you're wrong, and no insult intended, but this posting is a perfect example of why I'm exceedingly wary of the oft-touted idea of rails-to-trails as a means of preserving ROW for potential restoration to rail use.
Logically speaking, letting joggers, cyclists, skaters, etc. use the ROW while the rail companies aren't makes perfect sense. But the longer the ROW is used by the joggers, cyclists, skaters, etc., the more resistance there will be to the restoration of rail service. Especially since it takes grass-roots organization and dedicated volunteers to keep a trail in good condition: that same organization and those same volunteers rally against the efforts of the "big business" railroad to "steal" or "grab" "their" trail and replace healthful exercise with "noisy and smelly" trains.
A detailed contract with a right of repurchase and provision for compensating the trail operators for improvements MAY cover the railroad legally. However, it achieves nothing politically. The railroad seeking to exercise that contractual right will be the bad guy; with the angry soccer moms, the local newspaper editor seeking a juicy headline, ... and with the county councillor who reads that newspaper and has to listen to the soccer moms protesting the "greedy railroad" in front of the county building. And that translates to strong media and political pressure upon the railroad to give up its plans, or upon the city/county/whoever to buy the trail outright under eminent domain and block rail restoration utterly.
Now don't get me wrong. I think rails-to-trails is a great solution for permanently and totally abandoned rail corridors, where no company or agency plans to restore rail service. But people who claim that rails-to-trails can preserve ROW for rail use in the future are just kidding themselves. Once the trail is in, any rail plans for the ROW may as well be on flash paper.
You better believe it!! In Anne Arundel County (south of Baltimore for those not familiar) the county govt purchased the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad south of Dorsey Road in the 1970's to preserve it for rail use. In the interim, they built a hiking-biking trail on the ROW. Now, fast forward to 2001. There is a strong proposal to extend the Light Rail to Glen Burnie proper first, then further south. Some even envision Annapolis as we reinvent the B&A again with LRV's. Guess what - there are already protests about the return to rail, despite the proven record of co-existance with Light Rail and hikers/bikers in more enlightened pats of the world.
Despite the protests, the original wording in the acquision law was "To Preserve the Right-of-Way for future rail use"
Stay tuned, this one may end up in the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Still a few bugs in SubTalk.
There are double posts, but I didn't hit "Post" twice. I previewed the message, noted I didn't properly close the HTML tags, corrected the HTML, previewed the correction, saw everything was correct. Then hit "Post Message" ONCE!. When the index reloaded, TWO POSTS - one incorrect with the corrected post right below it.
Are you sure you hit preview and not post.
I highly doubt that this is the same bug that took down Subtalk last week. It's a completely different function.
You better believe it!! In Anne Arundel County (south of Baltimore for those not familiar) the county govt purchased the right-of-way of the Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad south of Dorsey Road in the 1970's to preserve it for rail use. In the interim, they built a hiking-biking trail on the ROW. Now, fast forward to 2001. There is a strong proposal to extend the Light Rail to Glen Burnie proper first, then further south. Some even envision Annapolis as we reinvent the B&A again with LRV's. Guess what - there are already protests about the return to rail, despite the proven record of co-existance with Light Rail and hikers/bikers in more enlightened pats of the world.
Despite the protests, the original wording in the acquision law was "To Preserve the Right-of-Way for future rail use"
Stay tuned, this one may end up in the Maryland Court of Appeals.
I personally do not think that a bike/hike trail is an effective way to preserve a railroad bed. An effective way to preserve a railroad bed is to buy it and let it get overgrown with weeds until you're ready to lay tracks down.
Portland Oregon has the sense not to open up that can of worms. The old Oregon Electric grade between Milwaukie and Oregon City would be an excellent spot for a MAX line to OC. It would also be a great bike trail. But the pro-bike and the pro-transit people know how to work together there, and so in what is arguably one of the nation's most bike-friendly cities, the railroad grade is NOT being used as a bike trail. Why? Because it isn't fair to put in a trail, have it for a few years, and then take it away again.
[Because it isn't fair to put in a trail, have it for a few years, and then take it away again.]
Does anyone know of an instance ANYWHERE where rails have gone to trails, and then back to rails? Can't think of one.
Then there's always the Metro North approach. A few years ago, Conrail announced that it was going to sell off the Maybrook line, which runs from Connecticut into Putnam and Dutchess counties, NY. It connects the ends of Metro North's Hudson and Harlem lines with the Danbury branch of the New Haven line. Metro North went ahead and bought the Maybrook line despite having no plans to begin service. It pointed out that if it didn't buy the line, the right of way would soon be lost to development, making it impossible to start service at some future date if plans ever changed. Metro North therefore is "warehousing" the line just in case it may be used some day.
That's the way to do it. Just leave it abandoned until you're ready to build again...
First of all the Douglas "L" is already falling apart, especially near the Medical Center (Polk Street Station). At this point the "L" runs above a parking lot and underneath it is slung panels of corrugated steel to catch chunks of it that fall whenever a train passes by. I've got over 80lbs worth of the stuff in the form of hot bolts, flanges, and other debris I collected last summer. All of it now sits on a mantlepiece in my apartment in Baltimore (my Aunt Reba thinks I'm nuts). As to the Paulina Street Connection that runs past the United Center, a station there would make sense but only as a special shuttle that runs on game days only. Otherwise, there's not enough going on over there to make it worthwhile.
Eric Dale Smith
Well there isn't enough ridership to justify special train to the station 24/7, but if you hooked up the Douglas line to it and ran Douglas trains to Lake, there'd be enough ridership on the trains going THROUGH the station (that is, douglas trains) to operate service there.
A daylight trip downtown and onto the South Side for Douglas riders would be a waste of time and money, the O'Hare line has more ridership than the S. Side; better to route the Douglas trains there. UIC Halsted is also a high traffic destination station and a transfer to get there from the Douglas would be a real pain for many students. There is no need to max it out on the Congress either.
I don't know if there's enough room for a Medical Center Station directly above Congress is amendable with the existence the Loomis ramp. If not the whole plan as it stands today is a nonstarter.
I'm for Lake stations at Halsted and Damen or Western, Asbury/Dodge on Skokie and 18th or so on the Green Line might be cool too. Another good use of cash would be straightening those tight curves on the L.
Extending the red line to 130th strikes me as silly since Metra trains run parallel to the route, just send more trains and integrate fares. Easier said than done- I know...
I think the idea of rerouting the Douglas is certainly worth looking at. I've also long believed the Paulina Connector shoould be returned to revenue service to serve the United Center. I think the Paulina part could be demonstrated at first as follows: As a United Center Shuttle running between Racine/Congress (yes, I know there are some switching conflicts with that) and Asland/Lake or the Loop for game-goers. If successful, make that part of the regular schedule. If *very* successful, through-route with the Douglas.
I'm not sure about route the Douglas to the South Side. A simple Loop termination might make more sense.
Graham
One interesting thing that some SubTalkers may not realize about the proposal is that it would mark a return to a routing that actually was used by Douglas trains from about 1954-5 to 1958. During construction of the Congress (now Eisenhower) Expressway and its median rapid transit line, Garfield Park trains were relocated on temporary surface trackage along the south side of Van Buren Street. Since there was no practical way to connect that line to the Douglas "L," the present Paulina Connector arrangement was put in place: the ramp at Lake and Paulina, connecting to the already-existing Metropolitan "L" structure (which at that point had been out of revenue service for three or four years), and a new connection across Congress Street linking the Logan Square/Humboldt Park and Douglas Park legs of the Met. After its completion, Douglas trains accessed the Loop via Lake Street until completion of the Congress line in June 1958, at which time Douglas became a leg of the West-Northwest Route.
Alan Follett
Hercules, CA
yes, as a kid that was the configuration when I first rode those branches. Imagine a grade level Garfield line with the ambulance chasers of today.
Here's what happened: Due to various construction projects, Northbound trains had to use the southbound track from Prince's Bay to Great Kills, and from Tompkinsville to St. George. Northbound trains switched to the southbound north of Prince's Bay, and just south of Great Kills reversed to use the switch to get back to the correct track. The conductor operated the train while going backward. The northbound trains got very close to the waiting southbound trains in the station at Great Kills before the northbound reversed and switched off. North of Tompkinsville trains switched to the souhbound track again, and pulled into one of the higher number tracks. For some reason one train had to pull into the turning wye (North Shore line) and reverse to get to/from the platform!
Who was operating the HO switches.
Oh yeah, I forgot. About 15 guys in orange vests crammed in the little wooden building ran out every time a train came, and one guy flipped a switch while another filled out a form and a third said something on the radio. The other 12 watched.
LOL, 12 featherbedders!
They were filling out the Form-D and passing the Batton. The conductor did not move the train backwards. SIR the operator can put his Key in reverse and move the train backwards without changing position. The conductor guided the T/O for the backwards move.
I've been on the SIR when they overshoot the stop, and just backup.
Actually, when they're doing reverse moves, which was due to signal work this weekend, they have a motorman board the opposite end of the train to run it backwards. Indeed, when they do blow a stop, the motorman will just pop it into reverse.
-Hank
That must've created serious delays. I guess trains can get very close together on SIRT because there isn't much of a signal system and no tripping system in place.
---Qtraindash7----is also at aol.com----->
There is no signal system for reverse moves. The signal system works fine for normal traffic flow. Why do you need trip arms?
The reason for the 15 vested people is the reverse move onto the opposite track is governed by passing a batton and Form D with approval of the Dispatcher in Tower B. No body can enter the single track section without the batton and the form.
Not on a weekend wih trains running every half hour.
--Mark
Not on a weekend with trains running every half hour.
--Mark
Actually, there were delays. Trains arrived at Tottenville 5-10 minutes late (no big deal) and at St. George 5-15 minutes late (big deal - 29 minutes till next boat?! DAMN!). No one who got off at Tompkinsville (to avoid paying fare) all weekend could possibly catch the ferry in time. There just was no backup of trains. The time for a round trip was not increased enough to warrant putting another train on the line (only four trains run the entire route on weekends - Sundays only 8 SIR cars total are in use), which ended up with some close calls at St. George for departing on time.
-- And no, they don't hold ferries, especially with 2 boats running at half hour intervals on a route that takes 25 minutes to run and 6 minutes to load/unload (yes, sometimes departures get incredibly off schedule this way).
The train on the wye was OOS, since there are no passenger-usable platforms past track 10, which is the tail of the wye. Since they installed the new switches, they usually haven't reversed through the switches. The crossovers you used were Huguenot and Great Kills, or HUX and GKX on the Form D. Past tompkinsville, you're in the terminal area, so you were switched over to the track neccesary to put you anywhere between tracks 4 and 9. They're doing construction work in the St. George tunnel.
-Hank
Need help on that question.
Regards,
Trevor Logan
www.transitalk.com
The cars were built by the Budd Co. (Philly), the same ones who built the first Amtrak Metroliner MU sets and the R-32 Brightliners for the TA. They began service in 1960.
Sorry - when I said Amtrak I meant Penn Central. The Penn Central Railroad began Metroliner service using Budd sets in 1969.
While they never saw service as such, the first half dozen Metroliner cars were actually delivered with PENNSYLVANIA KEYSTONES!!!! I didn't realize it until I looked at some slides someone gave me years ago, sure enough tere were keystones on them. The test program was just beginning, and by the time they got around to actually using the cars in service, the Penn Central merger had taken place, so in service cars all had PC worms.
Really? Wow - so itwas the Pennsy's management that thought up the Metroliner Concept, and the New York Central's which inherited it...
Pensy management was in charge of the PC so it was a Pensy project all the way.
When Acela was introduced, I wrote to Amtrak suggesting that:
a Then/Now photo be taken of a Budd in PC livery next to an Acela be taken, in honor of the 30th Anniversary of the Metroline; and that the Pennsy and Budd Co. managers who originated the concept and built the original Metroliner MU's be honored for their contribution to railroading and to its riders. I was told, politely, no to the first idea. I don't know what, if anything, they did on the second. I didn't see anything on Amtrak's website. I think those folks deserved recognition.
au contraire, it was the DOT which pushed the project paid for the research including the 4 Pioneer III's which they hotrodded as test beds for the design. DOT 1-4 were ordered 1965 and delivered in 1966. By the time the test units were received, the first lot of production cars were ordered, although delivery/acceptance was delayed to Dec 1968 for the first units. Revenue service begab in January 1969 with a southbound AM departure from Penn and an afternoon return. The times roughly mimicked the Morning/Afternoon Congressional time slots. Parlor service on the Metroliner included OJay and a pastry. The 'genuine' Metroliners had digital speedometers in each cab. I was jazzed to see the "124" in the rear cab aswe headed south.
And, the origional Metroliner was a major disaster from the beginning. Shortly after introduction, they were limited to 125mph max due to motor problems, the Westinghouse equipped (Thyristor control) cars were didn't work, the GE ones weren't much better. The ride was lousey (despite the high weight of the cars), and I believe at least one set decoupled in service, at speed.
There were a few variations on pantographs, equipment locations, etc, and the fleet was rebuilt at least once.
From what I understand, they were decently fast when they ran, but they didn't run often.
I'm not surprised Amtrak would want to sweep the history of the cars under the rug. I don't think anyone at the FRA or the US DOT really likes discussing them.
The name of the train lasted longer than the equipment itself.
I believe the PRR/PC wasn't exactly estatic about the whole idea, and that could explain it's lack of sucess too.
Of course, had the Metroliner never happened, the NEC probbably would have been dewired long ago, and Amtrak non existant.
<whole idea, and that could explain it's lack of sucess
too.
Of course, had the Metroliner never happened, the NEC
probbably would have been dewired long ago, and
Amtrak non existant. >>
Yes, it is my recollection that PRR was dragged kicking and screaming, and their mechanical people insisted on modifications which doomed the cars. And, yes they were not a stunning success mechanically, but in fact they sparked the public imagination, and indeed saved the NEC. The PRR had so assidously chased away passengers that the RR share of the market was shrinking against the Eastern Shuttles. Metroliner vrought them back and even before ass_ella the train was back on top. If they can pull off the same victory in the Boston segment, that will be neat.
/*Yes, it is my recollection that PRR was dragged kicking and screaming, and their mechanical people insisted on modifications which doomed the cars.*/
Out of morbid curiosity, what were the modifications done? It seems that part of the problem with the cars was the 150mph top speed, which was achived in a car that, IIRC, was >150,000 in weight. This wasn't going to work, needless to say. Lack of body mounted motors, etc, probbably killed it too. IMHO, the M-1/2 design would have been MUCH more suited, at least bodywise for a high speed trainset, on account of it's light weight (even the M-2s are pretty light)
/* And, yes they were not a stunning success mechanically, but in fact they sparked the public imagination, and indeed saved the NEC.*/
The fact that they reversed a decline in ridership, and caused a lot of excitement, even though they were effectively a failure, seems to poke BIG holes in the old 'the National (defense) Interstate Highway System killed the railroads' story.
/*The PRR had so assidously chased away passengers that the RR share of the market was shrinking against the Eastern Shuttles.*/
Lest we also forget the MP-54s? If your daily exposure to trains is a 20's vintage, bouncy, noisy, smelly, dirty, and slow train car, with no aircoonditioning and almost no hea or light, would you be willing to take a cross country or intercity train?
/*Metroliner vrought them back and even before ass_ella the train was back on top.*/
True, the Metroliner started it, but it was the Amfleets and the AEM-7s that established the NY to DC service as something decent and reliable.
I know Jersey Mike will go bonkers when I say this, but the AEM-7 is really a worthy sucessor to the GG-1.
/* If they can pull off the same victory in the Boston segment, that will be neat. */
Yeah, but I'm waiting for history to start repeating itself. Call me Mr Cynic :)
I know Jersey Mike will go bonkers when I say this, but the AEM-7 is really a worthy sucessor to the GG-1.
I have no problem w/ the AEM-7's seeing that GG-1 technology was lost to the ages and they are the best modern equilivent. Also since Amtrak dosen't really handle 18-25 car trains much anymore they don't really need a GG-1 sized motor.
actually, history repeats far too often with precious little advance in understanding on the mass scale--see histories of the institution of state and Federal regulatory ahencies, think long-haul short haul abuse, envision that the Standard Oil co is back to three pieces--care to take a pool on how long before its obe?
more directly on topic. My understanding is that the PRR people insisted on the outside bearing trucks under the 'liners rather than the BUDD Ptoneer III trucks such as the silverliners had. We all know that the Westinghouse cars were losers, OTOH wgen they ran it was good, and certainly an improvement over the deteriorating service on the regular trains. It is al;so likely that as with any 'new' hardware the 'beta' product is never really 'ready for primetime'. As to AEM-7's they are cearly a winner. However I harbor a personal preference for EMU's--its my childhood experience of IC, CSS&SB, and CNSM. Rarely sampled MP54's--when I did I was underwhelmed--great WWI era cars but way obsolete!
Interstate highways DID hekp kill the passenger train, but they had help. We could spend the best part of a week detailing this, but I will simply say that expecting any form of 'passenger transport' to honestly 'pay its own way' is a shibboleth. It is the great economist's game of which costs do I leave out of the calculations in order to cook the books. Again many hours. Suffice it to a that as a then 24 year old riding the first revenue run I was having a ball.
/*My understanding is that the PRR people insisted on the outside bearing trucks under the 'liners rather than the BUDD Ptoneer III trucks such as the silverliners had.*/
Argh!!! Actually, lots of HS lines use outboard bearing, but theyr'e fabricated, and designed for the tsk. Not an off the shelf truck like the Metroliners had.
/* We all know that the Westinghouse cars were losers, OTOH wgen they ran it was good, and certainly an improvement over the deteriorating service on the regular trains.*/
It seems this was more due to Westinghouse's insistance on "advanced" SCR technology, as opposed to the "old fashioned" ignitron (read: tube) system GE used. This being the "space age", why use a technology that was "old fashioned". Of course, SCRs were barely ready for prime time in the 60's.
/*It is al;so likely that as with any 'new' hardware the 'beta' product is never really 'ready for primetime'.*/
True. Which is all the more disturbing as to why Amtrak didn't insist on a protptype for what's effectively a ground-up, brand new design (Acela express).
/* As to AEM-7's they are cearly a winner.*/
Not a surprise. They're effectively an ASEA RC-4, assembled by EMD. Nothing works like duplicating a proven design. Note the HHP-8 is brand new, but NJ is taking the (imho) smart route with the ALP-46 - it's based off an existing, proven German locomotive.
It's not like electric locomotives are new. Makes sense to copy a proven design. Why not let Europe test and debug them for us?
However I harbor a personal preference for EMU's--its my childhood experience of IC, CSS&SB, and CNSM. Rarely sampled MP54's--when I did I was underwhelmed--great WWI era cars but way obsolete! */
but NJ is taking the (imho) smart route with the ALP-46 - it's based off an existing, proven German locomotive.
I thought they were coppying a French design, that BB3600 or something.
I'm sick of all these euro designs. I want to see an electric with a HOOD!
The HHP-8 is a cousin to a French design that, IIRC, was in development at the time Amtrak placed the order.
Interestingly, the AEM-7ACs are supposedly the first locomotives in the *world* to use IGBT inverters on them (as opposed to GTO).
The ALP-46 is based off the BD's class 101, I believe. I'm not sure what the propulsion technology is, or if it has body mounted traction motors, which believe the AEM-7 / ALP-44s have. I'm pretty certai it's GTO thyristor. IGBT is really new, but quickly becomming standard for everything. Hell, Radio Shack even sells an IGBT module that can run a 10 or 20 hp motor. It's $65 and the size of a stack of playing cards. Features braking, etc. I'm guessing within 10 years, a 500 hp motor controller will be the size of a milk crate. The whole thing.
As an aside - I've heard the M-7s are rated *1000* hp per *car*. For a train car that has to by contract weight less than 130,000 lbs - this should be quite a fun thing if they really do perform at that level. of course, with modern AC propulsion systems, I'd assume that you can litterally dial any HP rating you want within the capacity of the system.
I'm surprised anyone even bothers with DC anymore. AC propulsion makes DC systems look like a joke.
I miss straight AC systems like the GG1, P5, L6, B1, FF1 and every other PRR AC electric had excluding the E-44. AC-->AC No inverters, no nut'in.
E-44's all AC I think not. I believe they had rectifiers on board and used GE 752 (DC)traction motors mounted in trucks very similar to what were used under the first U-25C's
I said EXcluding the E-44.
/*My understanding is that the PRR people insisted on the outside bearing trucks under the 'liners rather than the BUDD Ptoneer III trucks such as the silverliners had.*/
Argh!!! Actually, lots of HS lines use outboard bearing, but theyr'e fabricated, and designed for the tsk. Not an off the shelf truck like the Metroliners had.
/* We all know that the Westinghouse cars were losers, OTOH wgen they ran it was good, and certainly an improvement over the deteriorating service on the regular trains.*/
It seems this was more due to Westinghouse's insistance on "advanced" SCR technology, as opposed to the "old fashioned" ignitron (read: tube) system GE used. This being the "space age", why use a technology that was "old fashioned". Of course, SCRs were barely ready for prime time in the 60's.
/*It is al;so likely that as with any 'new' hardware the 'beta' product is never really 'ready for primetime'.*/
True. Which is all the more disturbing as to why Amtrak didn't insist on a protptype for what's effectively a ground-up, brand new design (Acela express).
/* As to AEM-7's they are cearly a winner.*/
Not a surprise. They're effectively an ASEA RC-4, assembled by EMD. Nothing works like duplicating a proven design. Note the HHP-8 is brand new, but NJ is taking the (imho) smart route with the ALP-46 - it's based off an existing, proven German locomotive.
It's not like electric locomotives are new. Makes sense to copy a proven design. Why not let Europe test and debug them for us?
/* However I harbor a personal preference for EMU's*/
Me too.
/*--its my childhood experience of IC, CSS&SB, and CNSM. Rarely sampled MP54's--when I did I was underwhelmed--great WWI era cars but way obsolete! */
Heh. The PRR's MP-54s were horrible, at best, by even 50's standards. So were the LIRR's.
off the shelf when you want reliable, but radical vendors when you want innvation. Remember, Budd was once an upstart, so EMD. Lima was the steam builder with brains(say BERKSHIRE!). Too bad we don't have any builder of that caliber today.
BTW if you disliked MP 54's did you ever endure the Reading heavyweights? I commuted on those dregs from the Germantown area into Center City for several months. yuck. The BUDD's were a welcome change.
The Reading cars were called "Blueliners" and they appeared to have a very interesting truck design. Several are in excusrion service w/ the R&N near Mach Chunk PA.
technically those were only the few rehabbed air conditioned cars. the remainder were still in green in '65 when I lived there.
...I believe at least one set decoupled in service, at speed.
As I recall from newspaper reports at the time, it uncoupled between the 4th and 5th cars; the first 4 cars went 5 miles before stopping and the last 2 went 3 miles.
Since when is 125mph "lousy?" It was certainly not lousy in 1969 - in fact at 110 mph the schedule was quite respectable even compared to Japan's Shinkansen.
I'll concede the other problems you mentioned. But I highly doubt that this was something DOT shoved down Pennsy's throat. Maybe you remember the critics at Pennsy more than the project's supporters. The critics, obviously, looking back on it, were wrong.
1965, PRR long distance train--The General--all reserved seat train--the coaches--cars built for the NY-Wash line with minimal recline, advertising posters on the bulkheads, widows not aligned to seats. (these were rebuilt sleepers with no window change)
This at a time when most long distance trains were shorter, so long distance cocahes built for this train in the post war era should have been available. Not as vicious as SP, but anti-passenger for sure.
I'll agree that the coach design was suboptimal - but remember where we're coming from. This is Subtalk, and we tend to "micro-criticize." That's OK, but it's a long stretch from there to say that the Pennsy didn't want the Metroliner. The scenario which makes more sense is, that management did want it, but there were plenty of critics and complicating politics, and with the railroad having other problems (including an upcoming merger) the Metroliner was not the unanimous favorite in the boardroom. There was plenty of acrimony, to be sure.
I believe the Metroliners started testing in '67-'68 and may have actually entered service prior to the formation of PC. Also, there was some thought to using a few of the trainsets on the Phila-Harrisburg service, but this didn't happen and Silverliner III's outfitted with 2-2 seating took over this service instead.
"Also, there was some thought to using a few of the trainsets on the Phila-Harrisburg service, but this didn't happen and Silverliner III's outfitted with 2-2 seating took over this service instead. "
This occurred as Amtrak introduced Amfleet style pulled coaches.
I think it was a little earlier. I recall riding on the S-III's on this line in '72-'73. The Amfleet didn't hit the tracks until after that, to the best of my knowledge.
Thank You Ron!
Regards,
Trevor Logan
www.transitalk.com
i belive that the m3 was built in between 1959-1960
and they was built by budd co.
OK - we all know NYC Transit is short of subway cars. Not a controversy. Fine.
But we also know that the IRT and IND/BMT stocks must be replenished separately.
Is it fair to say that the IRT is in better shape - that the arriving R-142's will probably take care of any shortages?
The recent controversy over the G cutbacks have pointed to significant shortages on the IND and BMT subway cars. But the press has not separated the two divisions (A Div vs. B Division).
So, guys, how many B Division cars do you think we need now? How many if we anticipate full Manhattan Bridge Service in 2004? How many more if we count the first operating Second Av segment (the "Stubway")? I'm interested in your opinions.
The 212 R-143's arriving should cover the shortages created by the Manhattan Bridge re-routes and the 63rd st connector.
For the second av. 'stubway', I would think that you'd only need roughly 150 more cars. You can figure that the line would connect to Broadway. If it does connect to Broadway, You can operate the Q up to 125th/2nd av. through 63rd. st tunnel. Then, it will still manage to reach the East Side station at 14th st, where a lot of people already exit the 4,5,6 trains.
Is it fair to say that the IRT is in better shape - that the arriving R-142's will probably take care of any shortages?
It is not fair to say that the IRT is or will be in good shape, relative to the task that it is required of it. The East Side and West Side locals each need an additional 10 tph for 20 trainsets. The East and West Side express service each need an additional 5 tph (up and downtown) for another 20 trainsets. The Flushing Line needs an additionalo 6 tph. That's an additional 466 cars just to get back to 1964 service levels of 30 tph (36 tph #7). Add a 20% spares factor and this brings the total up to 558 cars.
What about expanded service - 35 tph on the Lex and West Side. That's an additional 240 cars with spares. So, for a reasonably conservative demand the there will be a shortage of 798 cars, or half the number of Redbirds they plan to scuttle.
So what you're saying is the MTA should purchase just as many new IRT cars as they would for the IND/BMT?
I'm sorry. I have not yet evaluated the requirements for Division B.
I'm proceeding along the following lines: 1. evaluate the shortages for each division individually; 2. compare these results to one another.
One problem is that levels of service are not defined. I'm assuming that this should be 30 tph where current demand dictates such service, based on historical precedent. I'm also allowing for two decades' growth thereafter. I am then figuring out how many cars additional cars are required to provide such service.
The ultimate goal is to achieve a maximum load level of 80% or a minimum of 5 sq feet per passenger. Can you suggest a different criterion?
This is assuming that you NEED all these extra cars. While these look good in THEORY, in reality, they aren't necessary. The IRT is in fine shape, unlike the IND/BMT, which is about to have the thinnest spare fleet ever seen this side of the Galaxy. You want to return service levels to the 1964 levels, which is highly impractical.
Now, realistically:
The East and West side locals could use a boost in service. But 10 train sets each? More like 10 combined, for an extra 100 cars. Then, the East side express. I don't know how many tph it can support, but adding another 5tph in each direction is ridiculous. It's congested as it is. Scrap that idea, it's not possible. The West Side. Granted, it could use a boost in service. But, 5tph in each direction? This is overkill. Middays, 2 and 3 trains run empty. So are you going to order 100 cars for rush hours only? Nope. The order for R-142's supposed to come up with something like 40 extra cars? So, run them on the 2 line. And, the whole 'spare fleet' policy is somewhat shaky to me. When the TA has a good maintenence plan, they always have some spare fleet cars just sitting around. Why not run these rush hours as 'extras'. They're just sitting there.
I don't know about the 7, and I'm not going to pretend to.
Expanded service would be nice, but it is unnecessary. The post was "Subway Cars Shortages", not "How to get seats on every subway train". The IRT has enough cars to fulfill current service needs. The IND/BMT is the division with the shortage. By your method of reasoning:
The 63rd/Manhattan connector shortages will require roughly 500 cars to fix (for continued service on West End/Bowery, G continues to 71st/Continental, V has 12-15tph, F has the same # of trains as before, V runs to Church.). Then there are a host of other things. C service improved, so that you can run it to Rockaway Park during Weekdays & expand it to 10 cars. Expanded Service on West End and Brighton Lines. It keeps going. then you'd have a need for something like 1,100 cars, and this is just the beginning of the problems.
Not saying I wouldn't appreciate expanded service, I would. But, Let's try to be realistic about service patterns on NYCT, which will always have places for expansion.
Expanded service would be nice, but it is unnecessary. The post was "Subway Cars Shortages", not "How to get seats on every subway train"
I had not realized that some people consider "seat" a four letter word. :-)
I think there has to be a definition of what constitutes adequate service - expressed in terms of waiting time, travel time and floor space. How to acheive these objectives becomes more obvious, once these criteria are defined.
the IND/BMT, which is about to have the thinnest spare fleet ever seen this side of the Galaxy.
Actually, if you look at the FRA database, you'll find some monorail system that is working on 0% spares. The NYCT rail system is woking on 17% spares, which is about the same as the LIRR.
When the TA has a good maintenence plan, they always have some spare fleet cars just sitting around.
The TA's maintenance/procurement plans are killing spares.
I would suggest that 20% would be a more desirable number, considering the effect of the blind cars on the R142's and R143's.
So are you going to order 100 cars for rush hours only?
This is one of mass transit's pitfalls. There is no getting around it. However, NYC has less pronounced peak use than other systems in this country. The TA must provide service, when and where their customers desire it. The TA would turn into a welfare program for its employees, if it did not so respond.
I'm going to assume you are reporting the use of a 0% spare plan, not endorsing it.
20% spares sounds fair. Now, correct me here if I'm wrong, but the R-32 car is now the oldest car in the IND/BMT fleet, right? With decent overhauls and decent maintenance, not counting the odd crash etc., we can go at least another five years without retiring any equipment, while adding the 143's. - would you agree?
I'm going to assume you are reporting the use of a 0% spare plan, not endorsing it.
I was just reporting. Spares and other redundant parts are required for service availability.
20% spares sounds fair.
I don't know whether it is fair or not. The number of spares is dictated by the mean time to failure (MTTF) and mean time to repair (MTTR). The increased use of semi-permanently connected or dedicated car sets generally means that fewer trains will be available for service. The decreases shown by NYCT in their MTTF figures do not yet compensate for removing multiple cars, when only one has a problem. I don't think it ever will. I don't have enough information to determine what the minimum number of spares should be. I do know that NYCT maintenance policies are not designed to reduce this number.
Now, correct me here if I'm wrong, but the R-32 car is now the oldest car in the IND/BMT fleet, right? With decent overhauls and decent maintenance, not counting the odd crash etc., we can go at least another five years without retiring any equipment, while adding the 143's. - would you agree?
Various contributors have indicated that the primary failure mode for older cars is body rust. The R-32's are completely stainless and do not significantly suffer from this affliction. The R38's, R40's, R42's use stainless for their outer shell but not their load carrying structural members. These are the parts that are supposedly showing deterioration. Replacing these members - i.e. rebuilding the car bodies - is not cost effective. These series and not the older R-32's are being eyed for replacement.
So are you going to order 100 cars for rush hours only?
This is one of mass transit's pitfalls. There is no getting around it. However, NYC has less pronounced peak use than other systems in this country.
Very true. Much of MTA New York City Subway's ridership increase is occurring during off peak hours.
--Mark
The East and West side locals could use a boost in service. But 10 train sets each? More like 10 combined, for an extra 100 cars.
The 1/9 needs double its current rush hour service south of 96th Street. Stand on the uptown platform at 72nd from 5 to 6 pm any weekday and afterwards see if you can tell me otherwise.
I can't speak for the 6.
[You want to return service levels to the 1964 levels, which is highly impractical.]
In a word, why?
"C service improved, so that you can run it to Rockaway Park during Weekdays & expand it to 10 cars."
Does the C really needs 10 cars? What I can see about this line, it runs way below compacity.
N Broadway Local
Ever ride the C through Lower Manhattan at 3-5 PM??? It's fine between 168th and 42nd, and its fine between Hoyt and Euclid, but between 42nd and Hoyt, crowds jumping on at every stop, especially Chambers and Bway Nassau, and the A running at not that hot headways, the C can become a mess, and you can see the people standing at the front of the platform packed and sandwiched next to each other only to find out they have to push their way to the "8" to get on their train. The fact that it is the only Fulton St local from Lower Manhattan or from anywhere doesn't help either. Other than the honorable mention Brighton line, the C is needed for the areas it goes through. 10 cars wouldn't be a waste.
Most of the incoming R-142s are for replacement of the redbirds.
We can't go crazy over Lexington Ave, if the 2nd Ave subway gets going, the cars that the TA has in store for it will certainly help out Lexington so rapid increase in service on Lex is not so necessary yet.
We can't go crazy over Lexington Ave,
I thought I covered all the IRT lines. I do thing that the number of cars assigned to the 42nd St Shuttle is adequate.
if the 2nd Ave subway gets going,
You missed April Fool's by one day :-)
Once again my film came back and I have some current interest photos to share with you all. Please comment! I would like to improve my photography skills. These photos are dated Mar 10->Mar 23.
First I paid a little visit to Winslow Jct. where I caught an NJ Atlantic City train racing through SOUTH WINS interlocking.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/NJT_4210.jpg
And here is cab car 5162 clearing the plant.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/NJT_5162.jpg
After that I took a nice pic of the rear of Winslow Tower
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/Winslow-rear.jpg
And you all know the story, when I got back to my car the distributor cap was cracked so I fixed it with masking tape. Here's the photo of the repaired and running engine.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/302-fix.jpg
Two weeks later I was at the Utica Ave. crossing in Westmont NJ where I took a picture of SOUTH RACE interlocking.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/SOUTH-RACE.jpg
And what is the BEST shot of the lot, NJT cab car 5162 (again!), roaring through the crossing.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/NJT_5162-SR.jpg
When I went back to school on the 23rd I stopped by Meriden CT and snagged these two shots of Amtrak's Vermonter.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/Amt_287.jpg
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/Amt_287v.jpg
I then went and documened QUARRY interlocking and this cute dawrf signal.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/QUARRY3.jpg
And who said railfanning is just about trains. Here is a pair of swans floating in a nearby lake.
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/Swans.jpg
http://129.133.1.64/~mbrotzman/Swans2.jpg
Don't let the white fluffyness fool you. Swans are mean, nasty, about the size of small dog and prone to attacking people who piss them off.
Mike, As far as the shots are concerned, I think they are fine, but notice the difference in the one on a sunny day ... that's a keeper.
[Don't let the white fluffyness fool you. Swans are mean, nasty, about the size of small dog and prone to attacking people who piss them off.]
In the Spring when the "Great Swans" have chicks is when you need to give them a wide birth. I use to do a cannoe trip on the Peconic River (LI Suffolk) with my kids every year (we played steel the flag ... lot of splashing & tip overs). There are a lot of those swans in that river & it's ponds. We learned to leave them alone.
Mr t__:^)
I can hear the Swan Theme from Swan Lake right about now.:-)
Someone on another list pointed out that a swan's wing is powerful enough to break a human leg.
BTW I know that sunshine is much better for photos, but the weather is always trying to spite me. Shortly before I got to Meriden to take those pics it started to rain!
Well the big day is close at hand, The all important signal test. The if you don't pass your out on your ass Signal Test. The you must get a 100 or your out like yesterdays trash Signal Test. Well wish us luck if you like if not we'll do our best anyway.
Here's wishing you guys luck - just remember to keep your one shots and two shots clear, don't forget your gap filler flags and watch out for reps ... chances are by now, it's all been drummed into your head to the point where you'll screw up writing down your name. :)
May your test be a nice happy AK ...
One shots and two shots?
Timers ... while not quite the official school car sheets, there's some on it right here ...
http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/signals/light.html
Mind ya, I've been out of the system since 1971 ... that's what we knew them as ...
Thanks yeah school car doesn't teach that. Its good to know thanks again
No problem ... and if they didn't teach it, then it may not be on the test. Funny how what's spoon fed tends to be only that which will be on the test. Also bear in mind that I've been out of the "ta" for precisely 30.0 years as of this month. I'm sure those GT's are still in the system though, and I'm certain they warned you about those flashing lunars which tell you that there's a tripper ahead with your name on it. :)
yeah they teach us about the grade time but they never told us they called them one shot or two shot
Yeah, basically in the old days, the two shot told you that you still had time to get to speed limit at this one but that the NEXT one you had better be at it or PSSSSSSSSSssssst ... essentially, this one will clear but the next one won't.
One Shot, Two Shot is simple slang that has come around as more and more GT's are put in. One shot is plain and simple, you blow the speed restriction on a one shot, hang up your handle.
Heh ... knowing your "two'fers" was the big magic in my time on the railroad ... after all, they didn't have Depends back then. :)
Let's see if I can do it from memory.
| or G or G/R or G/R/R or G/G or G/ = clear
/ or Y or Y/R or Y/R/R = approach
*/* or *Y* or *Y*/R or *Y*/R/R = advance approach
-- or R or R/R or R/R/R = Stop
-- over . or (-- or R or R/R or R/R/R w/ number plate) = Stop and proceed
-- over | or R/G or R/G/R = Medium clear
-- over *|* or -- over | with yellow triangle or R/*G* or R/*G*/R = Limited clear
dawrf | or G dwarf or R/R/G = Slow Clear
/ over | or Y/G or Y/G/R = Approach Medium
/ over *|* or / over | w/ yellow triangle or Y/*G* or Y/*G*/R = Approach Limited
/ over / or Y/Y or Y/Y/R or Y/R/G = Approach Slow
-- over / or dwarf / or dwarf *Y* or R/Y/R = Slow Approach
-- over */* or R/*Y* or R/*Y*/R = Medium Approach
R/Y/G = Medium Approach Medium
\ = Caution or Approach Restricting
-- over \ or dwarf \ or LW or R/Y or R/R/Y or dwarf Y or R/LW or R/R/LW = Restricting
G marker = freight trains treat Stop and Proceed as Restricting
Ok, how did I do?
Looks like you got them all right to me! Not that I have a clue as to what they mean.
Yeah he got me lost too
Don't worry about the signal test, you'll pass them all.
Just remember that the four main colors that you'll see is Red, Yellow, Green and Brown. But you'll only have Brown after you pass a Red.
Or especially after passing a white...
Or especially after passing a.. uh... what did that signal say again?!?!
Brown hmmm where do I find that one?
It usually coincides with the train dumping and your hand still on power and brake handle still on full release. When you hit a brown, you'll see the steam rise. :)
The train won't be the only thing dumping....:-)
Heh. Yep, hit the brown signal and nobody's your friend for the rest of the day. At least.
Mustang, you pass a red, you see BROWN when you look at your underwear. Get it?
Got it
Hahahaha ... I always wondered why so many of my fellow MM's wore brown pants ... hides it better. :P
It's easier to understand with the gif's:
Proceed on main route, next signal is clear
Proceed on main route prepared to stop at next signal
Proceed on diverging route expected next signal to be clear
proceed on diverging route prepared to stop at next signal
Yard indication signal (for yard leads, layup track/sidings, and sometines for second diverging route, esp. to wrong rail moves. Instructions are "Restricted speed and extreme caution"-- operate no more than 10mph, prepared to make immediate stop, within half range of vision, or two car lengths from an obstruction or unsafe condition, and to watch the rails and switches (since it isn't always telling you the exact lineup.
Stop, operate manual stop arm lever, make sure arm goes down and stays, proceed with restricted speed and extreme caution
Receive permission, then operate manual lever and follow rest of call on instructions. Don't let this one trip you up. I keep forgetting and thinking "Key By". It is often called "Key By" (check the gif's address), and especially with the "K", but it is not the same thing. It is basically a "call on" for an automatic signal
No permission needed to key by. But still restricted speed & extreme caution.
Approach at allowable (posted) speed and the next signal will clear ("two shot")
Approach at posted speed and this signal will clear ("one shot")
(BTW, "one shot" and "two shot" weren't taught my class either. I heard them first from some other old-time motormen.)
Nice touch! And I'm amused to rate as an "old timer" but yeah, reality has this way of hitting ya like the kiss at the end of a hot wet fist sometimes. :)
No no, you got it all wrong.
The first signal is CLEAR (NYC Style): Proceed not exceeding Normal Speed
then Approach Medium: Proceed approaching next signal at medium speed.
The next signal dosen't exist.
then Approach Slow: Proceed approaching next signal at slow speed.
the three yellows thing dosen't exist either
R/R/Y is Restricting: proceed at restricted speed
It's all clearly spelled out in the NORAC handbook.
Which railroad are you referring to? What is NORAC?
Northeast Operating Rules Adivsory Committe everybody is a member except the LIRR and possibly the PATH.
NYCTA isn't a member either. When I first got out of the city and onto other railroads, first thing I learned was everything I knew was wrong. :)
But the rules do work outside of NYC and environs ...
The NYCTA isn't an FRA railroad wither. That's the joke I've been making. I wanted to see how long it would take someone to notice.
Don't mind me ... CRI dump in progress ... love those "high rails" you send ... yeah, didn't want to confuse Mustang any further by leaping into that. I remember the shakes I had when I was up for the signal test 30 years ago though the first day in the railroad alone was the biggest dose of megashakes I had. Didn't want to confuse him even further. That "motorinstructor" site does have the right info TA employees need, quite impressive actually. I remember school car with all the stupid cardboard signals that could really have used some fresh paint at the time. Looked like they'd been in storage in a wheel trueing shop for 20 years or more. Had more rust than the sides of an R1 obscuring them. :)
I actually missed a few. I need to bone up on my dwarf signals.
Here's what I got wrong:
darwf *G*/R or dwarf *G* = Limited Clear
dwarf G/*R* = Medium Clear
dwarf Y/*R* = Medium Approach
R/Y/R = Med Approach not Slow Approach
R/R/*Y* or dwarf Y/R = Slow Approach
dwarf G/R = Slow Clear
Y/ = approach
R/ = Stop
R/ w/ numbers = Stop and Proceed
Um.........yeah. I knew that you got those wrong but I didn't wanna say anything.
Here's another one:
dwarf toss/Grrrrr/*?*=Medium Stop
Heh. Are they still using semaphors on the west end?
Has anyone taken this test in the pass 6 months?
I was in the first class to take it. I think it's 25 ?'s, 20 multiple choice 5 fill in.
When did you take it and do you remember the five write outs?
Alright, enough knocking the J line.
Buses can't come near to the service requirements for the Area of Queens that the J serves. It still sees a great deal of rush hour service. The stops might be close together. But, Who cares? The Skip-stop service and the peak direction express service rectify these problems. Middays, there's not a ton of service on these lines. So, no need for express service. And, It gets more riders than the G. Just reducing the G has driven people mad. Eliminating the J/Z? Nah. That line is 'priceless'
The J is pretty bad. I have taken it two too many times. Even during rush hour the wait is hideous. For example, a few years ago, I was at Fulton and there was some sort of delay on the 4 and 5 heading uptown. I was heading to 77th so I decided to take the J to Chambers and change for the 6 there. So I go over and wait, and wait, and wait some more. Finally, after about 10 minutes, a train comes in. All this to go one station. It was the beginning of rush hour so there was no M from Brooklyn or Z at that time.
The other time, I was faced with waits of about 15 minutes on the J.
You still call the J the best line? Never comes and its slow. In fact, if you could run a hippo on that line, they would probably take forever to go from Fulton to Chambers.
It comes, but it's SO GOSH DARN INFREQUENT!
My point exactly.
It runs at 10 minute intervals during the weekday periods, which is what every other line runs at except the 4, 6, 7 and E/F.
Perfectly adequate.
The 1, 2, and 3 all run more frequently than that.
The 1 does, but the 2 and 3 run every ten minutes during the midday hours.
And as of now, 24 minute wait as long as it's not rush hours with no M Train.
That's because of the weekday Williamsburg Bridge GO in effect between 10am and 3pm.
The J's run between Jamaica Ctr. and Eastern Pkwy. with 12 minute intervals, and 24 minute intervals to Broad St.
The M's operate in shuttle service during this time.
And what is this GO about, didn't see any workmen!
Arti
The DOT project on the bridge that has torn up the north end of the bridge is the culprit. There is no "track work" per se.
How does that limit the train capacity?
Arti
I think it obstructs on one of the tracks.
Workmen are working very close to the ROW near the portal just before the line goes underground at Essex St. Trains must run slow during the work, and having 12 TPH (normal midday J/M service) would grind work to a near halt.
So they have to go so far as to reduce service to 2.5 tph? That's nearly a fivefold reduction in service!
I think they're using only a single track across the bridge, using the Brooklyn bound track for 2-way operation. The construction is taking place alonside the Manhattan bound track. It takes about 10 minutes to go from Hewes St Brooklyn across the bridge to Essex St Manhattan (and therefore 20 minutes round trip). They probably added 4 more minutes to allow for lateness, etc.
So let's tear it down, and run buses, getting people where they want to go FASTER.
Arti
Barring a GO, a wait for a J train will only exceed 10 minutes during nights and Sundays. The J/Z, during the rush hour, runs 16 TPH, which is perfectly adequate.
My printed schedule, several years old, says there at best 10 an hour, never closer than 6 minues apart, and I know they have spread some of those intervals to 7 minutes to save a train set, and will take another off this summer.
When the Z is running, both J and Z trains run at 7.5 minute intervals in the peak direction.
The subway timetable on the TA website now says departing 7am to 8am from Parsons:
Z: 721, 732, 742, 752
J: 707, 714, 727, 737, 747, 757
During skip-stop period, which lasts about 75 minutes, each is every 10 minutes at best, express stations get 5 minute service.
There are never more than 10 an hour combined.
In the hey-day of the 14/15, it was no better.
"The subway timetable on the TA website now says departing 7am to 8am from Parsons:
Z: 721, 732, 742, 752
J: 707, 714, 727, 737, 747, 757"
That's very shabby rush hour service.
N Bwy
Now imagine killing skip stop and removing few (50%) of the stations, the service would look quite good?!
Arti
Service would look quite good if they will have express service to at least Broadway East NY.
N Bwy
[Service would look quite good if they will have express service to at least Broadway East NY. ]
Z express J local, and for most of the commuters the service frequency wouldn't change.
Arti
I feel comfortable with that arrangement only if the Z is schedule to come more often than the J during these periods.
N Bwy
[I feel comfortable with that arrangement only if the Z is schedule to come more often than the J during these periods. ]
Probably a reasonable idea, looks like those intermediate stations don't get that much patronage. At the same time that would reduce the service to those + additional travel time, so politically a hard sell.
Arti
There was a time when the Jamaica train ran express from Eastern Parkway to Essex St, making one stop at Myrtle Ave.
This was in the days when Marcy Ave was a local stop only, and the center track switches were west of the station, not east.
"There was a time when the Jamaica train ran express from Eastern Parkway to Essex St, making one stop at Myrtle Ave.
This was in the days when Marcy Ave was a local stop only, and the center track switches were west of the station, not east. "
Why did they destroy such a good system?
N Bwy
Why did they destroy such a good system?
I believe that Marcy became an express stop around 1962. I had left the city five years earlier so I don't know the reasons behind the change. Perhaps it was based on usage. Marcy certainly did have more traffic than its neighbors, Hewes, Lorimer & Flushng.
The Bdwy Bklyn Lcl (made all stops between Canal St & Atlantic Ave) handled all of the local stops in those days. I guess that the Z & J share those duties today except for Atlantic Ave!
The 15 and QJ Express ran thru the local tracks at Marcy but did not stop, while the 10 and M Express did stop. The "express" track was a rusted out stub.
Since I never ride the skip stop service in the AM, I didn't realize service was cut to that level. But it did run more frequently, as little as 3-4 years ago. J/Z trains always run at 7/8 minute intervals to Jamaica in the PM. I can attest to that personally.
Perhaps the line is not busy midday because it is slow? Close down half of the stations and you could probably save 15 minutes on the journey time. The question is, would more people be attracted to ride because of the reduced journey than would be lost due to losing a local station? I usually find that 12 stops is as much as I can cope with on any rail journey. After that, my life-force begins to drain away.
The N Broadway Line suffers from similar problems. It hardly ever comes. But the difference is, it's extremely crowded. To top that off, it's extremely crowded with people who don't like using soap and water. So, as slow as it is, at least you don't have to endure crowded trains w/ smelly people on the J line. Luckily, once you get on the N line, it does get you where you want to go at a reasonable time. I can't say that about the J for what I know of it. It kind of reminds me about the D "express", ALWAYS STOPPING AND GOING! NEVER SURE WHEN YOUR GOING TO MAKE IT TO YOUR DESTINATION ON TIME. That's why me and my family always prefer taking the A which I consider the REAL express.
Oh BOY! Here it goes again.
N Broadway LOCAL
You call the A an express? Crowded, infrequent? That isn't an express.
You never rode the A express, otherwise your response would have made sense! As far as I know, it's was (and probably still is), the fastest line in the system.
N Broadway Line
I thought the Q was
Bob
"I thought the Q was"
I thought the Q was too, however, the Q merge with so many different lines and it doesn't run as often as the A express. For instance, numerous times I've waiting at the west 4th Street, I see more F's than the B,D,and Q combine. But what's also more facinating, I see more D's and B's too. The Q isn't schedule to run as often as the D because it doesn't run as far as the other lines. Plus, it suffers the same fate as the BMT lines around Dekalb Avenue going around extremely sharp turns. But overall, I would rate the Q as one of the fastest trains R40. However, at one time, the 38's rule the transit system until they slowed them down because of mechanical problems.
A expppprrrressssss.
Oh NO! not again.
N Broadway Local
You never rode the A express, otherwise your response would have made sense! As far as I know, it's was (and probably still is), the fastest line in the system. If you talking about rush hours, you are still WRONG. The A runs much more trains than the D,Q and B combine.
N Broadway Line
It was an express with a capital E when the R-10s ruled supreme. It's been diminished somewhat now, but the CPW and Fulton St. express runs are still good.
I suppose I could say the Sea Beach is the best subway line, but I don't want to appear ridiculous, and so I will not make such an outlandish statement. But it could be if the following were done.
1. Send some other line to Astoria
2. Make the new northern terminal Times Square-42nd Street as it was
decades ago.
3. Make it run express in Manhattan, bypassing many of the lesser
important stations in that borough.
4. Send it over the Manhattan Bridge instead of letting my train
meander into the lower bowels of Manhattan.
5. Fix the express tracks after 59th Street so the express tracks can
go in both directions. And run both a local & express in Brooklyn.
6. Clean up all the garbage that has accumulated in the open cut in
Brooklyn. (Do these things and my line could be No. 1)
I like this, except for 1 and 5. There is no other line to go to Astoria, the R already goes to Forest Hills.
And as for the last one, using the Sea Beach express tracks is a complete waste.
The J line receives bad service for two reasons: One, it has a smaller passenger ratio. And two, it serves mostly minority communities. Most importantly, the infrastructure is old and inadequate for todays citizens who want to get to their destination quickly. As a result, the line isn't as popular as it could be.
N Broadway LOCAL
The amount of service any line receives is based on ridership, track capacity, and the availalability of subway cars, not on the ethnic makeup of the ridership. The first reason N Broadway Line gave is the correct answer: the riding just isn't there, especially since the Williamsburg Bridge closed in 1999 and riding shifted to the L and to bus routes feeding the A and C.
David
And also to the car, especially here in Ridgewood which is an additional transfer (to the M shuttle) on weekends. There are certainly enough peopleover here, but the neighborhood was built around the factory/cemetery belt, so there was probably minimal ridership; then it did turn minority, and service was cut back even more (Myrtle el.), now it seems to be geared towards the car. People take cars (and car service), instead of transit (buses as well), so that justifies not running anything, and since not that much is runing to anywhere, people are more encouraged to take cars/car service. (My wife, who can't stand the transfers, used to push me that we had to get a car, but we had nowhere near the money, and to me it seems a headache, partly because there are already so many cars on these narrow streets. I just like to live somewhere with decent transit)
I was thinking of how discouraged we are from taking transit last Fri. trying to get onto the J from Chinatown at night. Go to Chambers, you have to walk right past where the station is to use the IRT entrance, and then walk backto where the J is. (even with HEET's, that entrance was closed). Go to Canal, you have to enter the southbound side and walk all the way around. Now tell me this doesn't discourage people from using it (it certainly discourages my wife and friends. They are more inclined to take the L, which is being pitched to us, even though it puts us further from our houses. It also limits us from moving further into Ridgewood where it's nicer, but only the M goes. This area is as much a car neighborhood as Bayside!).
(And two, it serves mostly minority communities.)
I'm sure when the MTA discusses what services a community will receive Race is always the first thing they bring up. Name one subway line that doesn't serve minority communities. GIVE ME A BRAKE!
"I'm sure when the MTA discusses what services a community will receive Race is always the first thing they bring up. Name one subway line that doesn't serve minority communities. GIVE ME A BRAKE!"
In this case your right, it isn't a factor. So I apologize for even bringing it up. But the line does go to some of the poorest areas (mostly minority) in the city and hardly serves a white clientel.
N Broadway Line
The problem is less who and what it does serve that who and what it doesn't, which is Manhattan between Houston and 96th streets. Lines that serve low income neighborhoods in Harlem, the South Bronx, Corona, Jamaica and even Bed-Stuy have good service, because those lines also serve the central residential and business districts in Manhattan.
The J/M/Z exit the borough at Delancey Street, and therefore are of no concern to a lot of the more politically influental New Yorkers. It's also the reason why the Chambers Street BMT station is on the verge of collapse in spots, while the adjacent Brooklyn Bridge IRT station has been refurbished twice in the last 40 years.
Odds are a lot of people who've taken the subway hundreds of times from uptown or midtown to lower Manhattan would'nt have a clue where they were if they accidentally stumbled into the Chambers Street BMT stop. now if the MTA were to ever hook up the Nassau Loop with the Second Ave. line, it would suddenly turn into the refubished showcase subway station of downtown Manhattan.
This is true. This area got screwed partly from being an awkward east-by-south east of midtown, so we get neither the north-south mainlines, nor the east-west crosstown lines to midtown. Although, there once was service to midtown, it wasn't given enough chance. (Once again, service was poor (infrequent), and it wasn't used, so people wound up changing to the F anyway. I wish they'd give it another shot, especially on weekends, instead of just beefing up the L on us, which is a bit closer to midtown, but still no dice (transfers/stairs). When Canal express platforms open, it will be much easier to get to Times Sq. from the J (but still 3 trains for the M on weekends).
Odds are a lot of people who've taken the subway hundreds of times from uptown or midtown to lower Manhattan would'nt have a clue where they were if they accidentally stumbled into the Chambers Street BMT stop.
They'd probably think they'd stumbled into a long-forgotten mausoleum.
The Eastern Division has been the but of the subway system for yesrs on end.Alright,lets face the truth.Look at the service paterns from 1967 untill now.Then,we had the QJ,RJ,MJ,JJ and M. In 1968,the RJ/JJ routes were killed and replaced with the KK.SO now there was the QJ/KK/MJ and M routes. The original plan for the KK=168st.WASHINGTON HEIGHTS to ROCKAWAY PKY or 168 st JAMAICA,via Central park west local,6 ave local,Broadway/Brooklyn Express. That didnt happen,and the line died. Anyway,in1969 the MJ was done in even though ridership didnt merit it's removal.It was replaced with the B54 bus. Now we have the QJ/KK/M LINES. In early 1973,the QJ and KK lines were history,replaced with the J and K routes[along with line shortings].In '76, the K was gone,leaving the J and M ONLY. THIS was in fact the worst period [1976-'88]in Eastern Division history. TO make a long story short,over the years service has been reduced,cut back,hacked,slashed,sliced,diced and basicly ---- up by the T.A. EVEN WITH THE NEW ARCHER AVE SUBWAY SERVICE. Skip/stop service that ony last one hour with the Z[J clone],no direct route to MIDTOWN and all routing through to Downtown Brooklyn reduced to rush hours only. Newer rail cars [R44/46/68/68A]couldnt run there because they didnt want to spend the money to fix the clearance problems, but the problems were fixed on all the other lines,nor was the thought of buying cars for these routes ever brought up. The platforms could have been extended for 10 car trains and should have been,but that didnt happen. The line should have been relocated for faster service to and from JAMAICA,BUT IT WASNT. There is a lot more I could say,but why bother? Iguess the riders along this route didnt scream loud enough like the rider along QUEENS BLVD or ROSEVELT AVENUE. Something smells rotten,people.WOULD anyone care to comment?
[The platforms could have been extended for 10 car trains and should have been,but that didnt happen. ]
Wouldn't that make it one continuous platform, like Chicago Loop :-)
Arti
Wouldn't that make it one continuous platform, like Chicago Loop
No it wouldn't, because it's the State and Dearborn subways that have the continuous platforms.
"The line should have been relocated for faster service to and from JAMAICA"
Jamaica Avenue will definately be a lot better than Fulton Street because of the Turns. And even if local stops are install throughout the whole route. It's terrible the TA isn't considering this option to improve the line. Is it cost, NIMBY or what? How many people living along Jamaica Avenue would be affected? And, how much pressure would it take to ignitate this idea? This will definately remove some of the crowds off the E Queens Blvd line. On top of that, they could implement a new service via 6th Avenue. Question? Does these tracks merge with the express B and D tracks or the F local tracks? If it merges with the B and D tracks, they is plenty of room for a new line. Maybe this new line can go to the Bronx, sending the B back to 168th Street.
"Iguess the riders along this route didnt scream loud enough like the rider along QUEENS BLVD or ROSEVELT AVENUE. Something smells rotten,people."
If the riders aren't screaming loud enough for better service, than it's no wonder this Jamica line is as bad as it is.
Even when I'm killing some time, I find the line sickening. So I feel people who travel to work should find it sickening as well.
N Bwy
Both tracks connect to the local only. The northbound (BJ2) track comes down between the express and local, and probably could be connected if you removed some columns. The southbound (BJ1) turns out to the right of the local track, and according to some maps, the four Chrystie St. tracks run together like a 4-track line for a while, but I'm not sure how accurate that is, and taking into consideration whether they are level or not, I'm not sure if you could knock out a wall on B3 and connect it to BJ1. I looked along the wall approaching Grand to see if there were any openings to the outer track, but it was solid. BJ1 probably goes down while B3 goes up. So you could make the connection going uptown, but probably not downtown. I wish they could do that though.
This is an excellent recap of the history of the lines. As I was saying, it was a combination of neglect of the groups that lived there plus the apathy of those people. (They figured noone cared about them, and with the living conditions being so bad, subway service was not high in their minds)(Also, the more affluent citizens at the end of the lines had their cars)
Even with their rebuilding of local stations (one side done now, other side still waiting), they didn't take the opportunity to extend them. This wouldn't solve the 75ft problem, but at least they could assign 10 car 60 footers to a line-- such as the V and run them out there. What I've been suggesting lately has been to send the C to Metropolitan all times except nights, since it is already 8×60, and send the V to Euclid, crossing them at W 4th. This would defenitely have to wait for the new cars.
>>>Name one subway line that doesn't serve minority communities.<<<
Grand Central Shuttle. I know that's not a full fledged subway line, but I just wanted to try to answer the question.
The 7 Train serves No Minorites, HAHAHA just kidding
<>
YOU SAY THAT THE J RECEIVES LESS SERVICE BECAUSE IT SERVES MOSTLY MINORITY NEIGHBORHOODS? PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE ME SICK. ALWAYS TRYING TO RECEIVE VICTIM STATUS. ALWAYS CRYING FOR NOTHING.
WHAT SUBWAY LINES DON'T SERVE MINORITY COMMUNITIES? DO ANY NON-MINORITY NEIGHBORHOODS EVEN REMAIN IN THE CITY?
LOOK AT THE 7 TRAIN. NOT ONE WHITE/AMERICAN PERSON TO BE FOUND ON THAT LINE, AND I SWEAR THERE IS A TRAIN EVERY 90 SECONDS.
LOOK AT THE E TRAIN. GOES TO JAMAICA, WHICH IS 90% BLACK, AND SERVICE ON THAT LINE IS GREAT DURING RUSH HOURS.
TAKE THE G LINE. THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST THING TO A LINE SERVING A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD(Greenpoint is mostly Polish), AND THE CITY IS LOOKING TO CUT SERVICE BACK ON THAT LINE.
LOOK AT THE M TRAIN TO MIDDLE VILLAGE. SHUTTLES DURING THE WEEKEND, AND NOT EXACTLY THE FASTEST LINE IN THE SYSTEM. J TRAINS ARE KNOWN TO OUTNUMBER M TRAINS, AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE RIDGEWOOD TIMES. YET, THE M TRAIN GOES TO A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE THE J GOES TO A BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW CAN THAT BE???
LOOK AT THE M TRAIN TO MIDDLE VILLAGE. SHUTTLES DURING THE WEEKEND, AND NOT EXACTLY THE FASTEST LINE IN THE SYSTEM. J TRAINS ARE KNOWN TO OUTNUMBER M TRAINS, AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE RIDGEWOOD TIMES. YET, THE M TRAIN GOES TO A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE THE J GOES TO A BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW CAN THAT BE???
This is because people are used to their cars, but it's the people who live further in who are being slighted. The decisions may not be racist now, but it does seem to have been set in motion by policies in the past when Bushwick was probably ignored as a large junk yard. (service was cut, people didn't ride, so now there's no reason to provide service)
[Most importantly, the infrastructure is old and inadequate for todays citizens who want to get to their destination quickly. As a result, the line isn't as popular as it could be. ]
I think you have a point here, being one of the oldes lines the stops are placed very close, as back then it was the ONLY affordable mode of transpostation. Well it's 21st century now, time to abandon half of those stations, maybe even more and learn from the experience of other transportation systems where they use surface transit to feed RAPID TRANSIT lines.
And I don't want to hear about the virtues of skip-stop service from anyone. Can you spell increased wait time!
Arti
I like the (J) too. It's a fun line to ride---when I have time. It is, unfortunately, quite slow. But it's infinitely more interesting than Queens Blvd.
:-) Andrew
The J has it's good and bad points. It's reliable and rarely crowded to crush levels. It's also slowed by too many curves and the grade crossing at Myrtle Ave.
I've ridden the J all my life. I like it. I'd take it over any other line in Queens.
"It's also slowed by too many curves and the grade crossing at Myrtle Ave."
I rode the line enough to know that the line is slow when it's traveling in a straight line also. That's is the most horrible part.
N Broadway Line
It's slowness is caused by the large numbers of timers required by the curves and switches. In areas where none of the timers are in place, the J is as fast as any other line.
The March 2001 edition of The MAP is now in circulation.
This is the "Blue" version - that is, the regular version (blue for the background color on the front).
The only change I could find was the Transit Museum ad. In the January version the ad was for the exhibit at the Store at GCT. This one is for the exhibit at the Museum itself.
I would imagine the "Red" Multilingual version (red for the background color on the front) will be out soon.
>>The only change I could find was the Transit Museum ad.<<
What!!! They didn't include the 63rd. connector diversions! That Sucks!!!
I think the 63rd St Connector information has been on the maps since January. Hence, not a change!
John.
Exactly.
Thanks John
A kickoff meeting for the SDEIS is to occur on the 19th at MTA HQ.
See new stuff on MTA's webpage:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/planning/mesa/index.html
Notice that the subway cars in the illustration resemble an R110A and an R62.
I sure hope they decide to build express tracks eventually. Why would you miss an opportunity to do so? 2nd Avenue is plenty wide enough to keep them on the same level. They could even open the locals and then add the express later, like with the 6th Avenue line. At least build provisions for them...
Well, apparently, they're making the stations so far apart that it would resemble the IND midtown express services (which skip a total of four stops). I don't know how much express service would help the supposed 5 stops on the northern portion...
It doesn't sound like a four-track system is in the cards for this. But we'll know more when the Preferred and Other Alternatives are listed in the documents.
[It doesn't sound like a four-track system is in the cards for this. But we'll know more when the Preferred and Other Alternatives are listed in the documents.]
I saw some growth projections a while back that suggest we'll be clamoring for those extra two tracks a few years from now! The important thing now I think is to design the subway with the addition of express tracks in mind. It shouldn't add much to the cost. But they have to think hard about where they put and how they design the stations.
Well if they could run this line at 90 sec headways, not unimaginable, with few stops it perhaps could work.
* note: I believe in intermodal transportation.
Arti
[? 2nd Avenue is plenty wide enough to keep them on the same level. ]
I'm not sure you understand the design (MTA's site has the geography,) most but the excisting sections (reuse) and the stations are planned to be mostly TBMed or blased, thus the width of the Avenue (not ROW in this case) has no meaning.
Arti
Why use tunnel boring machines? Wouldn't cut-and-cover be easier, faster, and less expensive? Also, upon service implementation, passengers wouldn't have to descend the inevitably broken escalators 3, 4 or 5 levels downward (a la 63rd/Lex) to get to the trains.
Is the only advantage to TBM's to mitigate surface disruption during construction? Seems like a lot to go through to please a few shop-owners and residents along 2nd Ave., who had to have heard of the possibility of the 2nd Avenue Subway's arrival, no matter how remote it may have seemed all these years.
Sounds like this is really just gonna be "The Stubway." Basically, a feeder-shuttle for the BMT Broadway or IND 6th Ave. lines.
[Why use tunnel boring machines? Wouldn't cut-and-cover be easier, faster, and less expensive? Also, upon service implementation, passengers wouldn't have to descend the inevitably broken escalators 3, 4 or 5 levels downward (a la 63rd/Lex) to get to the trains. ]
TBM is not some expensive esoteric technology anymore. The cost is comparative to cut and cover. In Manhattan TBM has one major advantage, no need to relocate utilities (or whatever unknown stuff is down there) or underpin buildings. Also if you look at the proposed geometry, the stations will be built close to the surface using cut and cover.
[Seems like a lot to go through to please a few shop-owners and residents along 2nd Ave., ]
I don't think that after the construction ends they would be shop owners any more.
Arti
Arti's correct here. When a subway is built closer to the surface, it threatens the integrity of building foundations. It would really be inconvenient to have a huge office or apartment building topple over, so extra work is required to underpin it. Deep boring keeps construction away from where it can negatively impact people. For example, the Third Water Tunnel project has been chewing its way through Queens with almost no-one aware of it. One recording studio found extra noise on its audio taping equipment one day - its microphones were so sensitive they picked up the TBM bits passing through the area! But that was the only problem of its type, as far as I know.
> "Is the only advantage to TBM's to mitigate surface disruption during construction? Seems like a lot to go through to please a few shop-owners and residents along 2nd Ave., who had to have heard of the possibility of the 2nd Avenue Subway's arrival, no matter how remote it may have seemed all these years."
No, there are additional advantages to TBM for this particular application.
First, you have to think big picture. When you tear up Second Avenue for extensive C&C construction, you aren't just disrupting the residents and businesses along the street. The loss of vehicle lanes will certainly back traffic up into the neighbouring areas. I can easily foresee long term, major traffic delays as far away as the Deegan and FDR, simply as a Domino effect. Using an example from before, examine what happens to traffic in the vicinity of the high rise condominium construction between East 91st and East 92nd streets. Now picture that for a whole cut and cover tunnel segment. Yes, some C&C will be proposed, but my guess is it will be limitted to only what is absolutely necessary.
Second, cut and cover along Second Avenue would require monumental utility relocation. If you refer to the MTA's planning study, there is a profile of the proposed tunnel. A large sewer is called out on that schematic for a very good reason. It's relocation alone would be a herculean effort, and the DOS is notorius for giving numerous headaches in the past about building around much smaller sewer lines. Gravity flow must be maintained all the way to East 110th Street (maybe it's East 116th Street, I don't recall), where there's a pump station over by the FDR that sends sewage out to Wards Island. Yuck.
Matt-2AV
[I can easily foresee long term, major traffic delays as far away as the Deegan and FDR, simply as a Domino effect.]
I'm old enough to remember the cut-and-cover construction of the existing portions of the Second Avenue subway. For the most part it was just a bunch of wooden planks. People in New York make a big stink about everything, but it was no big deal, and I think we should keep in mind that this subway tunnel will still be young 100 years from now. If doing the best job means a few years' inconvenience, isn't it worth it? The original IRT was built cut-and-cover because it was best for the passengers, and it seems to me that that policy should still be true today. (Of course, they still new how to build a subway in those days -- a full length four track line built with little more than picks and shovels for a good deal less on an inflation-adjusted basis than they would build it for today, even after accounting for improvements in safety practices, conditions and wages.)
[cut and cover along Second Avenue would require monumental utility relocation.]
As I understand it, Second Avenue was kept relatively utility free in anticipation of subway construction. From what I understand cut and cover and deep bore would cost about the same (which is to say maybe three to five times what they should, using the LA subway construction costs as a baseline). Cut and cover would just provide a better subway.
[As I understand it, Second Avenue was kept relatively utility free in anticipation of subway construction. From what I understand cut and cover and deep bore would cost about the same ]
Cut and cover is actually more expensive, at least by current European standards. Let's not forget the Cunnel (here I go again) TBMed.
A good resource for current tunneling projects is www.tunnelbuilder.com
Let's hope that Skanska will get the contract to build 2nd Ave line.
Arti
Thank you for posting that. I will try to attend the hearing.
I see one of the alternatives envisages using the Nassau Street loop.
i recently ride on the market-frankford evel there train
was clean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You post another message with this many exclamation points again and I'll send "Seven" on the next Greyhound bus down there.
LOL
that's bullshit. what train were you on? Philadelphians are filthy. I hope that was sarcasm on your part.
They maybe clean, but the M-4's don't run well.
I was interested in attending a one day conference in Pittsburgh today at work, but when I checked Amtrak's website, they scheduled an 8 hour ride. Is that correct? I heard it's only 5 hours to drive or a one hour flight. How can the train take that long in one state?
Remember, this is slAmTrak that we're talking about. That train makes so many stops that you'd think that the engineer mistook some Ex-Lax for a chocolate bar.
It's a mixed (passenger and freight) train and uses a lot of time dealing with revenue-producing equipment.
The eastbound OTP is bad besides because of Chicago origination.
It is NOT a 5 hour drive (well maybe if you're Speedy Jones). You're looking at something closer to 6 or 7 hours driving (I know it's three hours to Carisle) plus at least a $13 toll each way, plus a (or more) stopover for gas/food/restroom (30min). I say take Amtrak. It'll only cost you about 4 extra hours, it'll be a great ride, you'll be much less stressed out, will probably be cpeaper than flying and you'll see the Horseshoe curve, Altoona, the rockville bridge and multitudes of PRR Position Light signals.
1) The route is not a straight line. Remember, you have to get past the Appalachians somehow, and the PRR did not build the tunnels that the NY Central did (now used by the PA Turnpike), so you are zig-zagging your way across the state.
2) You are competing with Norfolk Southern freights and using their right-of-way.
3) You are dealing with ex-Conrail infrastructure. It's maintained (and not very well in the past) primarily (yes, the by FRA rules it's passenger-safe, of course) for freight traffic, not high-speed rail. There are speed restrictions on the route. Hell, a chunk near the western end of the Rockville Bridge fell into the Susquehanna R. a couple years ago and too a blue diesel loco or 2 with it.
4) These days, the main reason for Amtrak's Penna. routes is to generate express freight business. If Amtrak were allowed to run the train freight only (they must cary some passengers by virtue of their charter), they might, over the strong objections of NS, of course. There are layovers in Harrisburg and Philadelphia for crew-changes and the addition of roadrailers and boxcars. Basically it's a freight train. There are more freight cars on the train than coaches. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that -- in fact, it's a good source of revenue -- but Amtrak is really not yet infrastructure and labor-equipped to handle freight coincidental with passenger service. At least not to the efficient standards found during the heyday or railroading.
5) Have you ever seen one of these trains? Amtrak has allocated its oldest equipment to the route. I don't suspect anything on the train runs at peak performance. I wouldn't be surprised to see the sleepers moved off the train since many of the Superliners were damaged in the Iowa crash. Amtrak is not flush with trailers these days, and it's getting thinner by the minute. Running in PA is a delicate and deliberate business.
You are dealing with ex-Conrail infrastructure.
What does that mean? The CR/NS Penn Route (Pittsburg/Harrisburg Lines) was/is one of their premier freight routes and is maintained to very high standards and there are no more speed restrictings than on most other lines.
Hell, a chunk near the western end of the Rockville Bridge fell into the Susquehanna R. a couple years ago and too a blue diesel loco or 2 with it.
I don't think any CR locos went into the drink and the damage was quite minor.
You are dealing with ex-Conrail infrastructure.
What does that mean? The CR/NS Penn Route Pittsburg/Harrisburg Lines) was/is one of their premier freight routes and is maintained to very high standards and there are no more speed restrictings than on most other lines.
Hey, Mikey, I'm the last one to impune the ex-Standard Railroad of the World. I was simply referring to the speed comparison between the NEC and the Penn route. You can't run in excess of 100mph on many parts of Amtrak's route system, which is utilizing freight ROWs for most of the intercity routes.
Hell, a chunk near the western end of the Rockville Bridge fell into the Susquehanna R. a couple years ago and too a blue diesel loco or 2 with it.
I don't think any CR locos went into the drink and the damage was quite minor.
Thought I remembered part of the train falling off the bridge. Perhaps wasn't the power. It was fairly big in the news, according to Dad. You can see where they repaired the crumbled part with concrete, which destroys the aesthetic of the bridge a bit.
I thought that faced it store. It dosen't show up in any recent photograph. A freight car might have gone into the watch, but I thought stuff was just hanging off.
Assume that you are stuck with zig-zagging track, but tilting trains (as used in Europe) mean that corners can be taken at speed. If British Rail can develop and run 125mph diesel trains, then anyone can, so lets pretend that there are no freight trains in the way and assume 100 mph average speed with five minutes per station stop (major stations only).
How long would this take, and would anyone use such a service?
Crossing the Alleghenies is more complicated than just zigzagging. When Ive taken the train from Philly to Pittsburgh, we crawled up the mountains presumably because of insufficient power, and we crawled down the other side because of speed restriction to avoid runaway.
On both sides there are a lot of curves and a constand %1.# grade and the ruling grade up the east slope is like %2.82.
Here are the OFFICIAL timetable speed restrictions. It takes up three pages.
http://www.eastrailnews.com/ref/ett/cripitl7.gif
http://www.eastrailnews.com/ref/ett/cripitl8.gif
http://www.eastrailnews.com/ref/ett/cripitl9.gif
You can see it's not that bad and most parts of the line is set for 70-80mph.
When riding the train, one notices how slow it goes; for example 35 to 45 mph for 6 miles makes one forget about the majority of track with 70 mph speed.
Geez, and people moan about the New Haven Line!!!!
Is a lot of the slow stuff due to lousey track too? If they could make 90 - 100 on most of it,. they could probbably do it in ~3 hours. Of course, with those grades, the only real way to achive and maintain those speeds is with electrification - especially given the weight of Amtrak's passenger equipment.
Ever notice how it takes 2 F-40's to do the job of an AEM-7?
Ever notice how it takes 2 F-40's to do the job of an AEM-7?
Yes, they have 1/2 the horsepower. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
In 1948 the PRR decided that it would not be economically viable to electrify through to Pittsuburg. In this day and age, although I would hate to admit it, probably the best route for electrification would be the CSX Chicago Line and Hudson Line north of Po'town.
I rode one of the First Great Western diesel sets from Paddington to Didcot... knowing you were doing 125 mph in a diesel set sort of makes you look back at trains at home and think, we'll never get it right...
-Dave
Umm hmm, my sentiments exactly.
The only thing that scares me about the British trains is that there is no ATP, no stop arms, or any similar system in effect, so if a train runs through a red light, the train will keep on going until the engineer stops the train.................or something else! (i.e.the Paddington rail crash a couple years back).
So actually while the we in the US have some catching up to do, so do the Brits as well.
I believe there is ATP now on the First Great Western mail line form Paddington, as well as AWS. It was there at the time of the Southall crash but was not commissioned. The Thames train at Ladbroke Grove was not fitted. Heathrow Expres services are fitted.
Simon
Swindon
They also have a severe loading guage problem and their rail freight service is like equilivent to Amtrak. In terms of environmental and economic concerns a good rail freight network is better than a good passenger newtowk.
Mike, here in the UK I feel the passenger service is the more important, both on long and short distance routes. Most services are very intense and trains well filled. The alterantive is to go by car and the already overcrowded roads can take little nore.
YOu will have to tell me why our freight services are like Amtrak as I have little knowledge of the Amtrak network. Perhaps you could steer me in the right direction of some good Amtrak sites with info on your diesel locos.
Simon
Swindon UK
From what I have heard and what my scotrail friend has told me in the US a combined passenger timetable could fill a magizine while a freight timetable would fill several volumes. In the UK a combined freight timetable could fill a magizine while the combined passenger time table fills several volumes (and cost $40).
I feel that it is much better to get the smelly, polluting, road ruining trucks off the highways first and then work on passenger autos.
The UK really needs to work on clearance problems to allow more stack trains, heavier rail for heavier cars and better sidings etc to allow trains longer than 40 cars.
Its not a complete free for all. The problem is that the protection system used can be overridden by the driver.
The Inter-City 125 definitely saved British Rail long distance services, or prolonged the agony depending on your point of view. They gave exactly the right image to the public just as the Advanced Passenger Train was running into difficulty. In fact, passenger numbers rose even when sets were cascaded down onto secondary services (e.g. St Pancras to Nottingham and Sheffield) where they did not accelerate journey times (the so-called nose-cone effect).
Did anyone on the USA ever experiment with high speed diesel passenger services?
Did anyone on the USA ever experiment with high speed diesel passenger services?
Yes, back in the day the Burlington Route had their Zpyher trainsets w/ a max speed of 110 they DID average speeds of 78 mph on some long distance routes. The UP also had some trainsets that were geared for 120 and I think ran somewhere 100-110. There was also some Talgo trainsets on the Rock Island back in the 60's-70's, but they were too light and bouncy to be popular.
Thinking about the abandoned station above Roosevelt Ave/Jackson Heights, I think that station would have been eventually abandoned if the 2nd system was built. This station would have been like Court St, where the Transit Museum is now. I don't think many people would have used whatever line that would terminate there, since most people probably would have wanted to use the line that would directly connect with Queens Blvd. Any thoughts?
I think it would have survived. perhaps it would have been for short turns because the QB main line was at capacity. besides some riders from the 7 would board. And in any event the real tragedy is that the lines weren't built so the residents don't have the service.
While a good thought, the structure of the ramps that connect the Queens Blvd local tracks to the Roosevelt Ave "second system" station don't really lend themselves to short-turn trains.
--Mark
I'm curious as to the character of my neighborhood before the 55-58 conversion from trolleys to busses, as well as the "urban renewal" entailing the Society Hill Towers. Did anyone here live in Philly before and after the conversion, and can you make any comments on the Society Hill neighborhood (I've read it was a Jewish slum) at that time? Thanks a lot.
I didn't hit the streets until '57 so I don't know first-hand, but the Dock Street area was the city's produce market until the late 50's when the Food Center was built in South Phila. From what I've read and heard, it was a dirty place.
I recall riding the 5 bus on 2nd St over what is now Society Hill, before 2nd St was cut off through the area. When that happened (about '65), the 5 rerouted over Dock, Mattis and Spruce Sts to get back to 2nd.
Yes, I took a trip to the Bronx Saturday and got out of there alive. No one recognized me. But, then again, I was in the North Bronx between 236 and 242nd Street, and I can say it was a pretty nice place. I was told it was between Kingsbridge and Riverdale, and I was impressed by the neat apartment houses and the single dwellings from 240th Street and above. I talked to three ladies and two men, and they were all friendly and helpful. I believed I crossed over the NY Thruway during my jaunt. OK Stef, you were right. There are still some very nice sections in the Bronx, but I did draw a few wierd looks when they saw my Mets windbreaker I wore. Not to get anyone mad, I did not wear it when I went railfanning with the guys on Sunday. However, I found out that a number of them were Mets fans, so that further made my day.
Welcome!
Thanks! Spread the word, I don't want to be Public Enemy #1 in the Bronx any longer. I might not be so lucky next time because next time I'm going to the South Bronx instead. I told you guys I was a little nuts.
The "Thruway" officially begins at the Yonkers border, that was the "Major Deegan Expressway" (which *is* the Thruway just the same) and the neighborhood you were in is called "Kingsbridge" ... that's my own old stmping grounds ... Broadway, Bailey Avenue running north and south by the IRT there. Not to worry though, lots of Mets fans around there. Probably the shock of seeing someone FLAUNTING it since you've gotta keep your head down and your jets chilled lest the Junkee fans "come for you" ... heh.
I was wondering what sent that shiver up my spine - it was you. :)
Now go back to the See Beech where ya belong, bub! Or we'll have to haul you up Kingsbridge Road to where it meets Fordham and give you a real life demonstration of the movie, "The Wanderers" ... Heh.
[The "Thruway" officially begins at the Yonkers border, that was the "Major Deegan Expressway"]
Say, Kev, that reminds me -- since there's a Major Deegan why ain't there a Minor Deegan?
nyuk! nyuk! nyuk!
:-)
There was ... the Major got busted for improper dealings with the minor ... so there. There's even a statue to Major Deegan somewhere near 138th St ... but yeah, it confuses the bejeepers out of out of towners when the Thruway just disappears from out of nowhere south of Yankers Raceway and then they get dumped on 3rd Avenue ...
Wiseass ... heh.
I'll give you a minor deegan.:-) (poke)
Can you imagine the Three Stooges running a subway train? Can anyone say Malbone St. revisited?
If I ever manage to get some time (and some sales of what we make to cover it), when I manage to get up to Branford, "Hi. I'm Larry" ... but then most of the rest of you guys can do that as well probably. I'll go for Shemp then.
How's about we take 1689 for a spin. Woowoowoowoowoowoowoo ...
Why, soitanly.:-)
Hey, Moe, what happens if I-
DON'T TOUCH THAT SHOE!!!! Snap! Crackle! Pop! Sizzle!
I'll bet that running 1689 would be like riding a bicycle.
Just gotta get a recalibration of the feel of the service application zone and I'm all set ... wouldn't wanna do a BIE unless we needed it. Heh.
[Can you imagine the Three Stooges running a subway train?]
Isn't that how zman handles the J Line?....;-)
Woof tickets ... get your woof tickets ...
I won't touch that one.:-) Woo-woo-woo-woo.
Just the same, maybe when I return to the Bronx on my next trip I bring a few of my railfan buddies for protection. That's it! We will railfan in the Bronx, and BMT Doug, Gary, Jeff, Newkirk, Q7, and Big Thurston will cover my back. Anyway, I did like what I saw of your old stompting grounds. But Mets fans up there? Hard to believe but nice to hear. I do remember as a kid traveling up to the Bronx with my dad to see one of his old friends ( a Yankee fan, of course). While I was playing stickball at a park nearby wearing by Brooklyn Dodger cap, three different guys my age came by and told me they were Dodger fans, too. I found that hard to believe. In the Bronx? But I won't tell you what some others told me, though. It was not nearly as friendly.
Not so illogical, Captain ... after all, the Bronx foots the bill for Steingrabber's dreams ... and Junkee fans tend to be loud an obnoxious. The more laid back citizenry of the Bronx despises the boorish behavior of a lot of Junkee fans. If it weren't for the Mets, they're be Boston fans. :)
And as to that trip to the South Bronx, you'll find it quite safe actually. The south Bronx went to hell in a handcart in the 60's and 70's. It's coming back now. I'd avoid the Tremont area nowadays. But down between 138th and 167th? It's coming back with rowhouses and restorations of many of the buildings around there. Still, I'd rather hang out with the cows ... NYC runs at a bit too fast a rate of speed for my personal taste ... push push push on a daily basis and so little to show for it.
"... push push push on a daily basis and so little to show for it. "
Well said
I'm a homey, what can I say? I was 26 when I hadn't quite scraped up enough bucks to move somewhere else, but a buddy of mine (I was living on Sedgewick and Kingsbridge Rd at the time) from up in Norwood stopped by the apartment (sorry guys, no R9 cab but I did have the original "Captain Nemo" radio board from WABC that cuzzin Brucie used in the 50's and 60's) and said, "Hey KJ, I'm packing up and moving to New Paltz ... wanna come?" HELL YEAH ...
What amazed me though was how it seemed that everything I earned, and everything I did just got eaten up by the city. Get ahead, fall behind. Treadmill living. Living way upstate, it's a much gentler life, pants optional. You don't live high on the hog, but you largely get to keep what you earned and the folks up here are nice. And things don't have to happen in a hurry, so long as they happen when they need to. I'll take this any day, living in the city just had me twirling so fast, the fur was flying off. I'm a bit saner now. :)
You can hear yourself think up here ... if you don't die of boredom.
Living in the City takes the Shizzit out of you, beats you up and over, and time flies by so that you actually feel getting older by the second, still its a small price to pay to avoid such solitude and boredom of the "suburbs" or in the "stix" And there arent any subways there, i'll tell you that. And the rush keeps me thinking that this whole insanity thing isnt really affecting me or anyone, what da hell am i thinking right?
Heh. Trapped! Rumor is we're getting a subway up here near Smallbany if the petty politicos stop beating each other over the head with their rubber squeaky locomotives. But yeah, the difference in living upstate vs. the city is that up here, the highest you can aspire to is selling paint at Wal*Mart or perhaps working at the big sausage factory where laws are made and budgets never happen on time serving as whores to the whores in charge. Nah, been there, dood that.
Basically the deal upstate is, "bring your own gig" ... if you can run your own business and take care of yourself, this is a truly wonderful place to kick back and be able to focus on what it is you do. There ain't no way in Hades I could write software in the city with all the distractions, interruptions, strange smells and noises of a fleeting nature that just break your train of thought with a humongous, "Yo! What the HELL is that?" Heh.
But if you can do your own gig and take care of yourself, it's nice. And out where I live, no 'burbs" though we can do a drive by within 10 miles if we really wanted to. Out here, it's all those supposedly cuddly animals that PeTA goes nuts over. We've got deer (rodents on F'ing stilts, please please please PeTA, back in here with a truck and take some with you) brown and black bears, SKONKS (wouldn't you just love a carton of 12 in a box to mail to Hizzoner?), rabbits who take out power lines, and of course racoons who can do more damage than a busload of taggers ... heh.
The one thing I've learned is that it's STRESS that makes ya sick. Not meat and cheese and beer. I'm healthier now than when I was 26 and it's all a matter of walking, chopping some wood and just chilling. But if I want to see a good movie or take in a Broadway show, then it's gotta be on pay per view on DirecTV ... but we all get together here in our little village of 2600 folks and dance and drink and shoot the sheet ... and I've got first dibs on the commuter rail if they do it ... I know the chairman of CDTA and he's gone for a few rides in train cabs with me. I'm *IN* ... heh.
[... its a small price to pay to avoid such solitude and boredom of the "suburbs" or in the "stix" And there arent any subways there ...]
Well, I've done just the opposite of Selkirk, i.e. born & brought up in the middle of nowhere. The only mass transit was a bus 15 miles away & it wasn't even a 40 footer ... rails, just a freight with a couple of cars in toe on the other side of the river. I got close to nature & developed hobbies and of course we had a Drive-In. Where I am now it ain't bad, some grass to mow, a quite street. My wife thinks it's the country, but she's a Cliff Dweller from Brooklyn. There is no way my wife will let us retire there, but I still own some property, just in case. Meanwhile I ride the rails just for fun.
Mr t__:^)
Yeah, don't get me wrong. The subway will always be the only reason for me going there. But there ain't no trees! Growing up in the Bronx at least, we had trees ... lots of them though over time, they were sentenced to a 6x6 hole in a sidewalk over time.
It's funny how it works - those who grow up in the city long for country while those born in the country yearn for concrete. :)
Hey Kevin I did just the opposite of y'all. I grew up in Highbridge then, at the tender age of 9, my parents dragged me out to the suburbs. I HATED it. When I was 21 I moved BACK to the Bronx (Bedford Park) and have been here ever since, woudn't live anywhere else. sure, the neighborhood has had it's ups 'n' downs but whad'ya gonna do?
Peace,
ANDEE
Andee -- your story sounds similar to Lou Levinson's. You sure you two weren't separated at birth???? ;-)
BMTman
Yeah, suburbia absolutely is nothing more than a kennel and mindsuck. It's QUITE different though getting completely away from the materialistic world and the rat race into areas of the planet where folks actually like one another and care for one another. IN areas north of the Catskills, you can *DIE* in the winter up here and rather easily at that. So there is a common bond you don't find in the city or its environs where folks watch out for one another, care if you've had a crappy day and all cling together because you NEED to.
What I had a problem with the city over was the depersonalization and the insane pace ... it doesn't change much in the 'burbs though you may own a square footage that's larger than you'd get in the city. Still, folks who move to the suburbs bring the problems and mindsets of the city along WITH them. Look at Levittown as but one example. If that's the alternative, you might as well live in the city - most folks in the suburbs WORK in the city and thus never escape the energy of it all ... it's WAY different out in farm country ... WAY different. But it requires a certain personality as well to thrive in such an environment.
But ya wanna have a chuckle? All the kids around here can't WAIT until they get out of school so they can get one of those $75 dollar Manhattan apartments ... heh. And because they're at that certain age where they have all the answers and a "moment of clarity" delivered by someone my age would go over like a fart in a spacesuit, I ain't gonna tell them the realities since I have "old ideas" ... what can ya do other than "OK, genius ... have fun" ... :)
Only Heypaul could have an R-9 cab in his apartment - even if it's set up BMT-style.
Yeah, his pircture of it REALLY threw me for a loop. I thought I had gone completely raygun in my old age. Heh. Fortunately he was willing to tell me that what I knew wasn't wrong.
heypaul with an R-9 cab in his apartment? I heard that from my raifan buddies on Sunday. I think that's real cool. But let me tell you something, I always look forward to getting back to California except for one thing. I LOVE THE NEW YORK SUBWAY, COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY. I really miss it when I leave. I'm the original subway rat, the human kind, and I could spend a whole week riding the rails.
I can see your point. When I left in 1954 I was at a loss from leaving the city. Suburban living was crappy. But that was in September. When June and summer rolled around it was a different story and I got real used to it. Now when I come to New York I know that I don;t have to stay here permanently. It is way too crowded and big for me. BUT---and it;s a big one, I do get a real rush when I come to the Big City, and for a few days or a couple of weeks it is a real pleasure to be here. But it would be hard to live in New York City on a permanent basis. I like open fields, space between houses, and golf courses. But make no mistake, New York is the greatest city in the world and a great place to take a vacation. So much to see and so much to do.
"So much to see, so much to do" is CONNECTICUT'S slogan, you flipping traitor you! Heh. But yeah, I guess I was a few years behind you. To me, NYC meant "Fascination" on Broadway, Black Jack and Show World on 42nd and a rash of peep shows and karate theatres there as well. New York City used to be "interesting" - you could take in the "do you wanna date?" on 8th avenue, drag queen cat fights on Christopher Street, "Umbrella too dollah" on 6th Avenue and "Ofays, lids, kilos" in Bryant park ... call me old fashioned, but a sanitized "Fun City" just ain't no fun (Sieg Heil der mouse) to me ...
C'Mon buddy ... you have those blue lights out where you live that attracts insects and goes "brzzzzz" when one hits. To me, that was the whole point of going to the city ... a Tad's Steak, wretching in the street, washed down with a fine French restaurant (Ney-deeks or "Nedicks" to the uninitiated), trying to guess what exactly was IN "Kansas Fried Chicken" and the awful stench of chestnuts burning on the sidewalk in a metal cart ...
Sure I miss the burgh every now and then, but you can get GO and Sabretts up here, you can get a knish that *AIN'T* square and pooted out by a machine, *AND* you can still get PASTELLILOS in the original semi-circle style like las Puerto-riquenos grandmere used to do instead of this "generic is it Jamaican meat pattie/pastellilo/empanada" crap peddled everywhere these days. No Greek pizza up here either ... New York has been disneyfied while those that used to make 4 inch thick Sicilian slices moved up here. For me, NYC was the FOOD ... the ambience, the hookers and so on and so on. Now it's Sbarro, Bugger King and everything else you can find in Iowa ... wish I could say there were things I miss, but in my case, we've got better booty up here now.
No offense to anyone, but NYC used to be interesting.
Yep. As scuzzy as it was, NYC 10-20 years ago was more EXCITING (with a bit of danger thrown in their too) than it is today.
Times Square has been too-sanitized to the point of being 'square' and 'hokey'.
Of course the area is much safer for tourists, and etc. then during the 'wild years'.
BMTman
Yeah, perhaps it's happier for "tourista" but as a RESIDENT, I preferred "old NYC" ... after all, if you had your sidewalk act down and you were the craziest bastard on the car, you ALWAYS got a seat and if you looked crazier than anyone else, you got left alone. Stare at the widewalk, don't look up and snarl at anyone who looked at ya funny. How hard was THEM rules? Heh. And if somebody hassled you, why you'd just talk to your hand and all was forgiven. They'd get out of your way because suddenly *YOU* were the looney. Worked every time!
And if you grabbed a "karate star" outta yer pocket and looked like you knew what to do with it, even the most dangerous looking characters would back down and sweat. "Oh yeah? You and what army?" was all it really took ... aside from the touristas of course. But I miss a New York City where my old buddy "Tokyo" would sit outside the Gem Spa and bikers ruled East 5th street. Where you could get a hand job for less than an umbrella and there was a chuckle on every street corner ...
I mean if you're gonna live in *KEOKUK* the air might as well be nice to breathe. :)
I think I'd better apply a bit of correction to what I said - rampant crime was a problem back then too but it was a factor of lax enforcement. While I DO appreciate the reduction in petty crime and its improvement of quality of life since I left, that was still no excuse for turning NYC (to my mind at least) into a cultural desert and that's what I was decrying in my statements - don't want to leave people feeling insulted by my comments, but NYC overdid it a bit in killing off those amusing things that made NYC unique like no other place in the world ... the artists have largely split and some of the amusing unique charms of the city died under Herr Mayor ... and STILL the trains don't run on time, what could have been his saving grace. :)
>>>...you can still get PASTELLILOS <<<
Oh gawd, those things are great!!!
Peace,
ANDEE
(sitting her with the munchies)
I wish I could remember the chain of "chicken places" all over the Bronx that used to sell the REAL pastellilos ... something FARMS ... they'd be laid out in the front window, sitting there like borinquen omelletes next to the chicken, staring you in the face crying out, "come in here and just EAT me" ... we just had lunch in Albany at Roy's Carribean and had genuine Jamaican "meat patties" (not those generic things they sell in NYC) and I'm itching for more. Four wasn't enough.
Just remembered ... MERIT FARMS! Yummy. Them commercial "Empanadas" just don't cut it ... pastellilos were deep fried cornmeal with just a bit of meat at the folded bottom and were a good nine inches of a half circle when made authentically. Then again, in NYC those square things are passed off as knishes when any goyim knows that REAL knishes are like muffins in shape and yummy. And yes, we can even get kishka up here.
And THAT is what I miss most about the city though you can't really get that any more down yonder ... no coke, PEPSI! :)
Like I said, New York used to be interesting ... now it's an extension of Anaheim.
Correction: that's Anaheim....with an interesting subway system....:-)
I flapped my gums here a few weeks ago suggesting that the Anaheim subway replace that silly "tram" idea for 42nd street - unlike Dizzyland, Rudyland has buildings that are actually tall enough for a monorail to do a "mezzanine" number ... but feh, nobody cared. :)
But ya gotta admit, turning New York Chitty into Velveetaland was one dumbass idea. Heh.
Correction: that's Anaheim....with an interesting subway system....:-)
Oh ... yeah ... now I get it ... don't mind me, our little software thing is involved in internet security and privacy issues and I spent all night (still awake after 30 hours) dealing with a rash of brand new trojan horses, ending up crashing through so many "nod-out windows" that my eyes are glazed open and have been for hours.
I've become a cowpie zombie (sing your best Glen Campbell here) "Like a cowpie zombie ... strum strum ..." yeah, great headlights on that D train. Yeah, we cool ...
What headlights? Most of the prewar D trains I rode on were mostly R-4s or R-1s, none of which had headlights. Now, THAT was fun!
Even better when the car lights were out too. No pesky glare on the windows. Heh.
I rode on such an E train on July 1, 1968, of all days. The first car was dark, although IIRC it did have headlights.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose ... truth be told, when I was running light in the reverse direction at rush, I'd often go hit the breakers and cut out the doors just to be left alone. Especially when I had a cranky day. There were nine other cars after all. I'd always let the kids ride up front though - they seemed to really enjoy it and as long as they stayed quiet and stared ahead without too much chatter, I could get my winks in the cab on the return trip. Heh.
You messed up your Yiddish "when any goyim knows" should have read "when any goy knows" You used the plural rather than the singular. 8^>
Sorry, we tend to gather in groups of ten or more. :)
L'cheim ...
Oh, A minyan :^>
B'Shalom
Yeah, my spelling goes all to hell when I've been up too late. :)
Whenever I come back to the city, it's as if I never left. While I never lived in NYC, I've been there so many times it lends an air of familiarity. To me it's a great place to visit, but I'm not so sure I'd want to live there. Now if they could just speed up the trains a tad...
Well Fred, there may be hope for you yet.... Perhaps one day, we'll meet face to face. You're on good terms with Doug, so that's a good thing. Imagine us being on the same side, seeing eye to eye, wouldn't that be something? One never knows what the future might bring.
At least all of the folks had a great time. Trains is the way to go, NOT POLTICS.
-Stef
You're right Stef. And we didn't bring up politics one time on our trip around the rails. It was all good fun and cheer. I did try to get ahold of you on this site to tell you I would be in the Bronx on Saturday. I saw some of the North Bronx and it was real nice, just as many of you said. You know what? My wife believes that my feelings about the Bronx might have stemmed from my dislike of the Yankees, who always beat the Brooklyn Dodgers in the World Series when I was a kid. That could be. At any rate, the Kingsbridge section I saw was very impressive. And yes, I really liked Doug. He is an enthusiastic guy and real positive. He was fun to be around. I hope when I come back for another trip we can railfan with an even larger group.
Have a great week
Sea Beach Fred
I walked quite a bit around the Bronx when I was seeing the last of my mom last March, and stayed at her apartment near Gun Hill/Eastchester Rd. Rode trains and busses everywhere,walked from Wheeler (Einstein) Hospital to the apartment, there to Westchester Sq. many times, across Tremont to Bruckner Expwy. area, many times was out between 8 PM and ll PM, no problems at all. Did some walking in the Fordham area at dusk, changed from train to bus at Simpson [still concerned because of the name the area had] but no problems.Rode a couple of buses thru Highbridge where I grew up, good enough I guess but not impressive. Some areas are quite nice but thankful that the Bronx has indeed come back. Noplace, anywhere, is perfect nor totally safe. In the 70's I'd never believe it could ever be good again. But for the most part it happened.
Well if you say it Big Ed, then I buy it. But I did see for myself and as I told Stef I was impressed with the part of Kingsbridge I saw. I walked around for close to two hours so I saw quite a bit. Some of those hills were pretty challenging. I wish I could have seen Riverdale, but maybe next timne.
New 13th Street Hoboken to West 38th Street ferry service started Monday with a boat leaving every half hour from 6 AM. $6 one-way fare. Story in Monday's online Jersey Journal.
The rollsign page has been updated. It now features readings that have covered over original readings. What you would do is roll your mouse over the readings listed in the about frame and the sign changes to what's on top of it! Cool, huh?
R36 #9346
That IS cool. I really like it. Good work!
BTW, comparing the R68 signs with the R-32 et al. reminded me of a really big deficit of the R68 signage--by providing only the route letters (no "Q-6th Ave./Brighton" etc.) they deprive the public of a big piece of info. They could at least make up for it by providing a bit more information of the South destination signs--i.e., instead of "Coney Island" they should have "Coney Island via Sea Beach," "Coney Island via West End," and so on.
I was just reading all those "Daily News" threads and I had a question about capacity. Everybody was throwing around numbers like 40tph etc, but I was wondering what exactly they were referring to. Is it 40 tph per track 40 tph per direction or tph per line or 40 tph per route. If you really want to improve capacity I'm sure you could do it with creative uses of CTC (like what Metro North and NJT does).
The "track capacity" that I'm referring to is the theoretical maximum number of trains per hour that single track can safely handle without any train being encumbered by the signal system. The "maximum" implies that this is in a single direction.
This figure is a function of the trains' acceleration, its maximum stopping distance from its maximum speed, the minimum allowable distance between the back of a train and the front of its follower, signal latency and station dwell time.
The contribution to a CTC vs. CTBC or automatic train operation or wayside signals is in the influence for signal latency - which also includes operator reaction time. It is generally the least significant quantity, numerically.
I was thinking that for the Lexington Ave line (6/5/4 right?) where I believe that there are 2 levels of tracks (?) they chould build 2 more tracks and install island platforms or a second set of wall platforms and run 2 sets of local trains. The easiest way to relieve congestion is to add more lanes.
they chould build 2 more tracks and install island platforms or
a second set of wall platforms and run 2 sets of local trains.
That's an excellent solution in search of a problem. :-)
The local trains are not overcrowded; the express trains are.
Oh, even easier, just add one or two extra express tracks. This way you can have Super Expess trains that like only stop at GCT and BB. With even just a single extra track you can run peak directional service. It would probably be a lot cheaper than a full 2nd ave subway. Is there any reason the Lex line shrinks to a 2 track ROW? Is there room in the middle of the local tracks for extra express tracks?
Is there any reason the Lex line shrinks to a 2 track ROW
Yes
Is there room in the middle of the local tracks for extra express tracks?
Nope.
What is the reason they can't add two extra tracks on the side of the lower level?
What is the reason they can't add two extra tracks on the side of the lower level?
The upper Lex was built as a tunnel not cut and cover.
[Oh, even easier, just add one or two extra express tracks.]
It would be a lot cheaper just to lengthen the express stations in Manhattan. For that matter, they could run 11 car trains in the current stations and let them hang over -- not elegant, but it would help while they worked on a long term solution. Then too, the Metro North tracks have plenty of capacity and are just a block away -- they could be used to divert some traffic that would otherwise go to the Lex, and to offer some interesting new services as well. But all of this is moot if they're going to throw away rolling stock.
I hate to say it, but I don't think the problem here is that there aren't solutions; the problem is that the people who have the power to do something about the overcrowding don't give a damn.
Mike, do work for the Port Authority? Are you behind the concept to twin the Goethals Bridge? Seriously, adding more lanes is usually only a temporary solution. You've heard, " If you build it, they will come"? If you add more capacity, there will be a short period where you will have empty space, even at peak times. Eventually, hearing of the room, people will shift their commuting patterns to fill it and then overfill it.
If you build enough lanes you'll have the perfect capacity for the amount of users.
I forgot which bridge, the Yellowstone or Whitestone, had the other built to reduce the crowding on the first bridge. The result. Two bridges with even worse traffic than the single one.
today around 12:00 pm i was waiting on the uptown 6 platform at 51/lex ave. i wanted to ride an R-142A but i didn't have time to wait for it. i got on the St. Louis Car R-29. immaculate condition, nearly rust free. When i got inside, the interior was sooo weird! what was weird about it? their was stainless steel panels on the inside, missing strap hangers and vents! the stailnless steel panels lined the top of the windows along side the doors and on the walls of the motorman's cab. the pole scheme mimicked what is now on the R-62's. it was car #8660. the redesigned interior made seem so more modern than than the other Redbird cars, has anyone seen something like this?
That's 8660, the only one that was done like that. It was apparently a test, as it was done when Morrison Knudsen rebuilt them (I first saw it in 1986), but they decided not to do all the other cars to that extent. I wished it stayed on the #2 (I could tell that the #6 redbirds were on the 2 before by the green stickers under the yellow), because it was so much like the new R-62's coming in (which neither the 2 0r 5 were getting)
Yeah, I've seen that car too, it is pretty neat. Much like finding the bench seat or black floor R-62(a)s.
Peace,
ANDEE
Don't know how common it is, but I was on an R-33 or R-36 (it was on the '7') yesterday which had an all-red floor. Usually, the floors are two-tone, that beige and red, or light blue. Not usually all-red.
Another anomoly on the 7: R-36WF #9576-7 (and maybe others) are still painted light blue around the windows inside the car, instead of the typical GOH beige.
They also still have rubber borders around the rollsigns.
Many of the WF R-36s also have mainline doors; i. e., doors whose windows are set higher and do not line up with the picture windows the way the original door windows do. I noticed this last fall. The R-33 singles still have their original doors.
I never noticed this, I'll have to check. Thanks!
I've never seen that one.
One of the R62's (or are they R62A's?) on the shuttle, back in the early 90's, had bench seating. Seats were brightly colored, as on any other R62, but passengers weren't forced to fit inside the usual narrow seats. This was on the train on the middle track (2, no?), at the east end. It's not there anymore. Is it still around?
Yes, those cars, I believe there are 4 of them, run on the 4 train.
Peace,
ANDEE
5 of them. Car #s: 1586-1590.
bench seating is still available on select Kawasaki R-62 cars on the 4 line. its hard to catch one but you will eventually run into one with that type of seating. i find it comfortable and upright. it makes me feel comfortable and less slouch like.
The Illinois Railway Museum has approved and budgeted a 2 car Redbird purchase, and assuming the TA lets them have it without an asbestos fiasco, maybe that pair, or that car should make up half the pair that they acquire.
I'm not sure if you are serious, but that raises an interesting
museum philosophy question: do you preserve the oddballs or the
typical car? If you could preserve just one example of a Lincoln
Head one cent piece, would it be the zinc 1943 penny?
If these cars are built according to the married pair principle requiring the preservation of two cars to form the smallest working train unit possible you can do both: preserve the single oddball car and a single ordinary car. If these cars weren't built according to the married pair principle and you can only preserve one then...you have a difficult decision to make...
I think IRM wants R26's. I think the masterpiece is an R29. They could probably mess with the link-bars to mix-match. Are R26 pairs Catholic or Protestant ?
R-26s are Protestant, even though prior to 1991, they were Catholic.
Why R-26s for Illinois? The cars were built by American Car and Foundry. ACF passenger equipment is rare out there.
The asbestos issue may in fact affect the purchase. I've talked to a Branford colleague (not one of our posters here), who has said the TA wasn't selling any subway car to anyone. R-26s are apparently out of the question, because they're heavily covered with asbestos. R-33 Mainline Cars on the other hand, might be a possibility. As the person explains, they aren't heavily covered with that stuff, and could go through a light asbestos abatement program. I wonder if IRM would settle for 33s instead?
What will ultimately happens is anyone's guess, as things are subject to change.
-Stef
What the hell was I thinking of? I meant to say that the R-26s are Catholic at Present, but were Protestant prior to 1991. I think my brain is like fluff right about now....
You're forgiven, my son
Peace,
ANDEE
The R-26s and R-28s were originally Protestant married pairs, with couplers at the blind ends. During GOH, they converted to Catholicism, receiving drawbars. The R-29s and up were Catholic pairs right from the start.
Did you pick up that expression on "Catholic and Protestant" married pairs from my book "They Moved The Millions"? I learned it from a friend I had who was a TA car supervisor originally from the IRT at the Lenox Ave. Main shop and later at 207 St. when the IRT shop was closed. I never heard anyone else use it and wondered if that was an expression known to others outside the car shops. Just FYI and IIRC the R27/30 were also "Protestant". Pretty dated expression now, as few of any religion seem to care about church feelings on divorce.
Seems everything's "Catholic" now. They aren't even teaching us this distinction in class now, because it is basically forgotten about. (Its only mention in class was by me when I showed everyone that the R-30's used as school cars had couplers on the #2 ends.)
It's true that many Catholics don't practice. In fact, since many people saw their parents stick through bad marriages due to church teaching, there seems to have been a total reverse in the younger generations, where those from that background, especially from Latin American and European countries who discover the "freedom" here, are more likely to get divorces. I've seen this from working in a court record room counter).
Mainline Protestants have always been liberal in this area, but evangelical or fundamentalist (conservative) Prostestants (myself included) are generally more strict than the Catholics ever were (at least they granted annulments). But of course, many of us slip too (such as singer Amy Grant)
So the expression is truly outdated.
We're still talking about subway trains, right?
-- David
Chicago, IL
The catch is this: if you marry in the Catholic church and subsequently divorce, you cannot remarry in the church unless you get an annulment (or your ex-spouse dies). If you don't get an annulment, your only option is a civil ceremony and if you do so, you become "estranged" from the church; i. e., you cannot receive communion or have your confession heard. Many people feel this is unfair, that they're being punished for something that isn't always their fault.
Wonder how many of the odd couple R-32s were granted annulments.:-)
Oh, how about the one that had the sex change? It would be barred from either Catholic or conservative Protestant Churches (the liberal mainlines would accept it though! :-)
One had a sex change and is numbered out of the normal R32 range
That would only have to be #3348. It's the only R32 I know that fits that description.
IIRC 3669 became 3668 or vice versa after its mate was wrecked.
Steve see my previous post; yes that is correct; current #3669 is ex #3668 after Malbone Street II wreck of December 1, 1974 wrecked the original #3669 - bent the frame and put a huge dent in the side.
wayne
That is correct- R32 #3348 is ex #3659.
Shall we replay the Odd Couples list again?
wayne
Only #3628 and (ex)#3668 were granted annulments as their respective spouses died. They have since given (ex)#3668 a name and gender change, making it #3669 so that it could be mated with #3628.
wayne
I still haven't seen 3348 in its present reincarnation. Maybe this fall I'll get lucky.
Yes, I have doen my homework. Notice that the R27/30 in their latter day were always in mismatched pairs.
Neither. They are Jewish.
Yes and no. The MTA preserved R-7 1575 because it was the prototype for the R-10 series. However, 8660 didn't lead to anything new, since it was a semi-copy of already-arrived R-62 interiors instead of the prototype for them, so it's historic value is less.
And as far as I.R.M. goes, yes they do want an R-26/28 pair, since they were made by Illinois-based A.C.F, while 8660 and the other R-29s were made by St. Louis Car.
The 1943 Lincoln cent was made of steel and coated with zinc. A magnet will attract it.
I'm surprised to hear the IRM is interested in buying them. They usually don't acquire any equipment except those that ran in the midwest...unless it's the same class. For example, IRM has two MBTA PCC cars, still marked for the D line, that will eventually be repainted and relettered for Chicago Surface Line equipment.
R-29 Car No. 8660 is a very interesting Redbird indeed. Did this car also have the molded plastic seats like the R-62s or did they keep the ebnch seats instead.
BMTJeff
Bench. I have a picture of it here (10.2-16).
The interior of R-29 No. 8660 is very interesting indeed. All they would have needed to do was to install the molded plastic seats and then you would have an interior that resembles the R-62s and the R-62As.
BMTJeff
Well, I don't think the rollsigns are R62-style, are they?
:-) Andrew
No, they are "regular" style.
Peace,
ANDEE
Is there a list somewhere of cars that don't quite fit the usual style, like the ones mentioned in this thread?
It is possible that there is a list of cars that don't fit the usual style somewhere. You might try to contact the website host for information.
BMTJeff
The SIR GE R/44s, the GE r/32s, the bench type R/62s,
please add as needed.
avid
I've thought it was common practice for a TA to redo an interior of at least one car in a fleet. SEPTA during the '70s was the king of oddball interiors (especially with the PCC fleet). So to have one redbird with a non-standard interior is not that unusual to me.
...how about painted on signs?
Noticed that at least some of the Franklin Shuttle cars the "S/Franklin Avenue/Prospect Park" is painted on the windows.
Is it true the T/O keeps a paint scraper, paint can and stencil in his cab, just in case they have to extend service to Coney Island on a GO?
Sounds like a possible invitation for graffiti. And only a very few lines have rolling stock so comitted they can actually paint the information on! The Franklin Shuttle, sure. And maybe the 42 St shuttle, and the (7) and perhaps the (L).
:-) Andrew
I thought equipment on 42nd can also run on the 3 at any time.
Maybe so. I was just guessing.
:-) Andrew
It can because at times when you ride the TS-GCT Shuttle they have the strip maps on the ceiling for the (3).
Mike
"Mr Mass Transit"
The L could share cars with the J and M. I've seen car 4444 on the L, and hear reports that it was wunning on the J a couple of months ago. Also, when the Williamsburg Bridge was under construction a few years ago, the entire fleet on the M line was a few 4-car trains of R40 slants. They were all from ENY.
>I've seen car 4444 on the L, and hear reports that it was wunning on the J a couple of months ago.
It's sitting at the bumping block of track 45 in 207th St. now. (We went from Lefferts to the car wash and back today and yesterday). It looks like it has new trucks. Next to it are wrecked car 1369, and the Mets/Yankees R-142 (6311), and the 110A are nearby. Also, there are no 143's there, as someone asked, but the 110B is outside also, along with severl other 142/A's.
Yes, all of the Eastern Div lines interchange R-40m/42 equipment, (In the beginning, they tried to keep them all separate, and the 40m's seemed to be only on the Z, and the L had the higher numbered 42's which were the Coney Island rebuilds, which weren't painted as well inside.)
The L also can't have painted signs because there are turnback points for G.O's (Myrtle, Eastern Pkwy, etc), si it too needs changeable signs. The Franklin Shuttle always uses the same two terminals, plus, it is the only line to use 2 car R-68's, so it must use the same trains.
Well it isn't painted on, it's a plastic thingy, but difficult to peel off.
There only 10 R-68's that are used for the Shuttle. these cars do not run any where else because they are the only cars not coupled into 4 car units. They stations north of Prospect Park can only fit on more than two 75 foot cars. They dont let trains of two cars to go on the Brighton Line South of Prospect Park. When Shuttle cars are replaced, Coney Island Yard will send up 4 Cars. The Train Operators will cut the two cars that are left up there and then add up to the cars that have to go to yard and bring them back. If the signs get marked up there is a car cleaner that gos up there to clean the one train that runs there and the others (The one that is layed up and the one that is used as a gap train=an extra train that serves as a back up in case one of the trains is taken out of service for any reason.)
This past weekend they did the car swap from the CI Yard. You had the two trainsets in service, one laid up (Gap) in the station and one out on the local tracks before the interlocking. I didn't see the move, I assume when they went back to one train headway they would make the move back to CI.
I don't think that's paint. I think it's a prefabricated sign with some kind of plastic covering it on the interior side. It's the same view on the interior and exterior view, including the (S) bullet on the right-hand side in the exterior view! I have a picture of one of those signs here (10.2-25, near the bottom of the page I've linked on this page).
I recently heard that in the IRT, the "swipe on-swipe off" system for signing on the payroll is currently in use. Is this true? And if so, what are the penalties and/or allowances for latenesses?
Just interested.
I know somebody that works for the MTA and lives in the Bronx. Here's the E-Mail adress.
Glenn6398@aol.com
OK.
I know the guy. He's not an A Division Train Operator; he works in the B Division and probably wouldn't be able to answer ZMan's question.
A word of advice to all: don't post someone's e-mail address without his or her permission.
David
I spook to him about 2 Days ago. He did not tell me anything that he works at what division he works for.
D R40S #4200
Where do these rumors come from? To the best of my knowledge, no terminal in the A division is set up for swiping onto the payroll, although we keep hearing that it will appear at VanCortlandt and White Plains soon. Can I infer from your question that this system is not in use in the B Division as we in the A keep hearing?
Ugh, rumors are the pits. No Alex, we don't have "swipe on/off" either.
And the longer it takes to install for both divisions, the better.
Check your TWU contracts - STATE employees (PEF, CSEA, etc) have a provision that PROHIBITS "timeclocks" ... instead a time SHEET is required under penalty of imprisonment for misrepresentation but actual timeclocks (which a swipe system WOULD be) is a violation of state labor contracts and given that MTA is a state "authority" while not quite a state "agency" might have similar prohibitions. Time to wake up a steward and ask. :)
Board of Ed, non-mayrol agency with State and Federal funding has time clocks for all "non-professionals". Meaning the teachers don't have to punch but everyone else does.
Yeah, that falls under "home rule" as a city agency. Dunno where the TA stands in all this or how decent a job local 100's been doing over the years but such would be a major problem for a state agency to pull under its own union contracts. But before you get envious, state workers can't march off the job, are entitled to eat all the (ahem) the state's willing to feed them, but that one indignity is a no-no under prevailing contracts. Since I've been out of TWU, I have no idea of what the rules are now but I'd be disappointed if they didn't have a "no time clock" rule ...
Currently, all Cleaners in the system and Car Inspectors in the yards have to punch their card in a timeclock. So it looks like our wonderful predecessors in the TWU gave this one up.
Wow ... then that "swipe-it" rumor just might come to pass then. Sounds like an adminiswig's dream (and probably a "suggestions" cash reward too) ...
I figured that I'd answer this before the question would inevitably pop up.
The red diamonds that are now being placed onto R42 equipment means that the specific two car unit is equipped with an "enabler".
For those of you that do not know what an enabler is, it is a device that is situated on the T/O's console that allows (or gives permission to) the C/R to open the doors. On the unit are two orange buttons that say "Left Platform" and "Right Platform" respectively. They stay lit at all times (even while in operation). The only time that one of the lights will go out is when that specific section of the train is open.
Here is how an enabler system operates:
1) The T/O after making a station stop, presses the button that corresponds with the side of the train to be opened. When the C/R opens the doors, that light goes out on the T/O panel.
2) When the T/O presses the button, the C/R receives an orange light which is located between the Master Door Control and the PA. When the orange light is lit, the MDC is activated and the C/R can open the doors. The light stays lit until the C/R turns the vapor key to the run position. When the key is turned to run, the C/R's orange light goes out and the T/O's orange light goes on whether the doors are locked or not. The T/O still has to wait for the regular white (green on 44/46) indication light to come on before proceeding as the orange lights are not to be used for indication purposes.
The enabler will only operate if all the cars on the consist are enabler equipped. If even one car on the train is not equipped, the enabler will be rendered inactive and the trains doors will operate normally.
What's a C/R ?
The dopey dude in the middle with the funny glasses on.
Just kidding. C/R=Conductor.
How come I've seen C/R operating with no Goggles on during station time?
Any C/R who is not wearing his safety glasses while performing his/her duties is violating the rules and is subject to be disciplined.
Mind you that I personally do not agree with the ruling, but (cue the piano) that's just the way it is, OOOOOOOOO SOME THINGS'LL NEVER CHANGE (twang).
HEY!!!! I resent that. :):) Anyway, the door enablers are coming to the R62's soon.......
It is comimg to all the cars that are not being retired in the next few years.
Robert
Assuming the MTA isn't getting wacky enough to think about running OPTO with R-42 cars, what is the idea behind installing the new system?
The idea is to eliminate the possibility of te doors opening on the wrong side.
Not only that, but if a T/O stops short of the stop marker, perhaps due to a station timer in the middle of a station which doesn't clear, it could save a careless c/r because hopefully the T/O will not push the button (unless both make a big boo-boo)............The first enabler train of R44's has been on the A line for quite a while, another one recently entered service. Now, the R42's are being prepped. Hopefully the new TWU leadership will have something to say. If I as a T/O have to push a button to allow the c/r to open the doors, you are giving me another duty to do and I deserve extra pay. It's like half OPTO!
Well Bill, you do realize that you'll be operating this train next pick. If ya squeeze a couple of pennies out of the TA, lemme know, k?
Well is would have help a C/R on the "E" yesterday. The T/O stop half way into I think 5th ave 53th st. The T/O had the timer in the middle and it did not clear. The C/R did not even look and open the doors. So this system would have help in this cases.
The conductor pointed out the window and found a bogus "lucky board" in front of him? Probably would have been a help but ya gotta wonder why he opened up at all with no jail bars in sight.
So now they're putting this nonsense on the J line?
I can't stand the two enabler R44 trains that are running in revenue service now on the A line. And they have the nerve to spread that cancer to other lines? And on SMEE equipment?!?!
Just when I thought the TA couldn't outdo itself. . .
Um.........that Train Dispatcher's title is starting to look a little better to me right now.
You ain't never lied, zman. For me, that ATD position just gained another point.
Well there are now four or five R44's with the enable inserivce. I had one the two Saturday. The funny thing is that when the door open on the on side the bells would ring, but they would not ring when closing.
Robert
Even in consists not fully equipped, the two buttons stay lit.When the c/r opens up on a particular side, that button will go dark. BTW, the train that's fully enabled had trouble at Marcy Ave during the p.m. rush.The doors wouldn't open up!
When the enabler doesn't operate, I just plop the Daily News on top of it to block those damn orange lights. They are such a pain in the ass to look at while you're attempting to operate.
With that train that wouldn't open up, well.....haha. Those R40/42's always have something going wrong anyway. Last week, I had to take a southbound J train out of service during the morning rush at Essex St because the brakes didn't want to release on the W'burg Bridge. I finally got them to release after 5 minutes. Normally the passengers on a train that's fully packed and is forced to discharge would be extremely heated. Funny, when I told them that the train is out of service due to bad brakes, nobody uttered a single word.
Did you have a Coney Island rebuilt R42 at your operating position? Usually when you are taking little nips of brake and releasing continuously like on the bridge, that'll happen with that junk!
>>>Did you have a Coney Island rebuilt R42 at your operating position? Usually when you are taking little nips of brake and releasing continuously like on the bridge, that'll happen with that junk!<<<
Mike, YA NAILED THAT ONE ON THE HEAD!!!
It would be nice if the yardmasters in E.N.Y. yd could bury those cars as much as possible.
Especially when you're reading the chapters on the Malbone Wreck over the PA for them before dumping them on the platform. Nothing like motivated geese. :)
Lol. "Nothing like motivated geese", Selkirk that's a good one!
Heh. You're welcome ... pity the R1/9's didn't have PA's ... the ride would have beat anything Howard Stern could have come up with. Back in my days, the geese would be banging on the cab door begging to get off when I was operating. :)
All the R142's have them installed. Now if a C/R opens on the wrong side the whole crew is liable and it also more dwell time in the station. On the 2 they have already cut the running time and TA knows that the 142's don't accelerate as fast as the redbirds so when operating the 142's all you hear is "where did you lose your time?", plus they are adding more timers along the run.
They cut the running time, they're adding timers, and the R142's have enablers which cannot keep the train on schedule.
Looks like the #2 line superintendent won't be getting a bonus (haha).
Where are they adding timers? Not on the 7th Ave. straightaway, I hope.
In the past year they have put timers at the following locations: south of 96st on 3 track, entering East Tremont on 3 track, entering 238 on 3 track and between Pelham pkwy. and Bronx Park East on 2 track.
I thought that the R42's were going to be retired before the R32's. If that's true, why aren't they putting them in the 32's and leaving the 42's alone?
ZMAN,
I can't understand this. A conductor opens the doors on the wrong side of the train ? How's that ?
A few years ago, I was on a train of R-68s on the (N) northbound at Times Square. We were on the express track, possibly track work on the local. Suddenly, the doors opened on the side of the columns then quickly closed. People were calling out "hey,hey,hey !" Luckily, nobody fell out who may have been leaning on the door.
This has to be unheard of years ago. What conductor would open the doors on the wrong side knowing loss of their job that pays the rent and feeds the family ?
Bill "Newkirk"
Its been happening for many years, but more so recently.
One word causes this: INATTENTION.
Sometimes the C/R comes to work really tired, or is simply thinking about something other than work, or any other item related to inattention to duties.
All of this became magnified a few years ago when painters, maintainers and other workers in similar titles were layed off and then reassigned to front line titles such as C/R, T/O, Station Agent, etc. The reassigned C/R's hated their new job and purposely sabotaged their positions thinking that "if I'm a bad C/R, I'll get my old job back". Well they did, but in turn it ruined things for the remaining C/R's and T/O's. Because of them, the silly system of pointing at the C/R's indication board started.
Of course mechanical problems or vandalism could be the culprit as well for wrong side openings, but on the most part it's the fault of the C/R. With the enabler, the TA is looking to sharply reduce if not eliminate wrong side door openings.
Okay we pull into a station, "curr-shhh" as the T/O let go of the handle in full service as we are still rolling (this is a "MOTORMAN").
We wait and wait (R42), C/R "Hit the Button"....
Waiting as T/O is busy pushing his lineup button with his yellow stick (ha and you thought button pushing wouldn't be coming to the Subway?).
C/R "Push the Button to enable"
T/O Pushes the button but opps, he hits the wront one..
What happens? Can the T/O just hit the other button? Is there a reset or penality time before the MDC is turned on?
Now me and 200 other pax are pounding on the doors to get out, opps pax pulls the cord, doesn't want to miss his stop...
A few days ago ridingon the R train, at Court ST the train dumps after arriving in station, that was wierd, then when we was at Whitehall, The train makes some wierd sound the doors open but the train is still slightly moving forward, but significantly, suddenly i hear the brakes applied and train stopped. This is no lie and it was on an R-46, Anyone else had this kind of experience?
>>>T/O Pushes the button but oops, he hits the wrong one..
What happens? Can the T/O just hit the other button?<<<
Yup. There isn't any penalty time to wait or any other restrictions that I am aware of.
Well, perhaps someone else can answer this also.
How does this missle-launching two-phase commit system work,
electrically? Are they using some of the spare trainlines
that were added with the 4th row of the electric portion?
It would only be an assumption since I have yet to see the system on the R-42s. The system on the R-44s use spare wires so I suppose it would seem logical. Personally speaking, I think that anyone who believes something is foolproof underestimates the fool. Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to hire conductors with an attention span that's longr than.................what was I saying?
Seems to me that it would be
more cost effective to hire conductors with an attention span that's longr than....
My thoughts exactly. Being able to open the doors at the
correct location is fairly fundamental to the duties of c/r.
Now, what happens at a terminal when the m/m brings a train on
the stand and goes out the crew door? Is the c/r unable to open
all the doors until the next m/m pushes the button?
You have a point Jeff, they do this every day at Brighton Beach. Someone brings a train in from the layup tracks. Dumps it use the crew door or if on opposite platform I've even see them lift the seat and open the door via the handle on the door motor and walk off.
>>>Is the c/r unable to open
all the doors until the next m/m pushes the button?<<<
Correct, because the MDC has not been activated by the T/O yet. Now what may happen is that the switchman before leaving the train pushes the button to avoid this scenario.
No the system only works when the reverser is put into forard posions. Other then that the door will open up if the botton are not pressed.
Robert
>>>Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to hire conductors with an attention span that's longer than.......<<<
Even if you hire C/R's with the best attention spans in the universe, mistakes will still happen.
What happens (as I'm sure you're aware of) is that a C/R simply falls into a "zone" after doing the same thing day after day after day......
It happens to everyone, the catch is that you have to "wake up" before you do something really stupid.
How often did that sort of thing happen in the olden days when conductors assumed the position between cars? It would be pretty obvious if they climbed up on the wrong side. Whoops!
As someone who did it, you'd know your route but you could still be surprised every now and then. Barrelling down CPW into 59th for example, you'd go and get ready, take the gate down to climb out on the right side (looking south) and then suddenly notice you had hit the switch and were going over to the local track ... a few expletives later, you'd put the gate back, go to the other side and get the gate there and climb out.
But when you were outside the car, you would pay a lot more attention to what you were doing and where you were just because it was dangerous for YOU ... and you had to climb out, see platform and lucky board before you put your fingers under the bottles to yank so I would imagine it was pretty damned rare. I never opened up the wrong side in the time I was a conductor though ... though it wasn't uncommon to find myself on the wrong side after a switch when I thought I was on the right side. Opening up took so many steps though, you had it right by the time you had your fingers in place to do your thing.
How soon did you have to assume the position? Obviously, you had to be ready to open up when the train stopped, but was there a rule as to how early you had to climb up on the step plates? When the R-7/9s appeared on the Canarsie, I would watch the conductor, and he wouldn't assume the position until the train was in the station and slowing down.
You wanted to be between the bottles as it stopped, but to get ready to climb out there, you'd want to get the gate out of your way and hooked into its holes so you could get out there. I would normally wait until we were in the station like most anybody else but the faster you got the gate stowed, the faster you could do the car monkey thing. Since you had to get the bottom part into its hole and then the top (and with the cars moving, you wouldn't always sink the putt first try) I always made a point of doing that before the train got into the stop. The gates were a much bigger pain than the actual climb and grab. And having to put it back, then do the one on the other side owing to a surprise ... well, expletives were the first thing that came to mind when you'd get switched by surprise.
I wonder if there were any conductors who wished they could just stay perched on the step plates if a stretch of several consecutive stations with platforms on the same side were coming up, such as the 7 local stops along CPW southbound.
Nah ... the rules required you step down and close the gate. You had to at least step down if it was a short dash to keep them from stepping off the car and under it. Don't get me wrong, most of us loved our gig with the TA, but we weren't THAT nuts. Well ... maybe. :)
Zman - mistakes do happen! We all know that. It's the type of mistakes that concern me. The people who open up on the wrong side never seem to forget how many vacation days they have. They never seem to forget which attractive ladies get on at what stations. They never forget on which Thursday their check comes. They never forget to put in for 'late clears'. Despite all this collective knowledge & wisdom, they forget to observe the platform, they forget to point at the C/Rs boards, they even forget to verify that there is a platform under them before they open up. Training is not the answer! Seems to me we need to raise the standards, pay more and get people who understand that they are responsible for customer's safety.
One of the things that made me go out for conductor back in 1970 was the INSANELY HIGH prevailing wage at the time. Better than $250 a week when that kind of money really meant something. I've looked at what's passing for TA payscales these days and well ... you DO get what you pay for. :)
Let me clarify my previous statement. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, think that all NYCT conductors fit into this catagory. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Most perform their duties in a highly professional manner day after day. The same goes for train operators. The 'door enabling system' at the heart of this thread was not designed for them. It's for the extremely small minority of employees who can not focus their limited attentions on their duties. I don't think that simply raising salaries is the answer. I do think that raising the job requirements, raising the standards and then paying people who are worth more to do the job the way it should be done, is the answer.
Having said that - this is clearly not simply a NYCT problem.
Tuesday AM, my LIRR train made its scheduled stop at Hillside Facility. The engineer overshot by about 3/4 of a car and did not bother to hit the 'door hold switch' in the cab. Hence, the doors opened and the LIRR employees standing by the first door portal were suprised to say the least.
>>>. It's for the extremely small minority of employees ...
Who don't belong in the buisness
Peace,
ANDEE
Sorry guy, didn't mean to make it sound like I was insulting the crews. Heaven forfend having been part of the dog and pony show once. I was lamenting how the payscale for the gig, which was once of the finest paying jobs in the city has gotten like working for the state. NYCTA folks used to enjoy a very good wage in exchange for the right to be hauled off a train and beaten about the head by supervisors for small indiscretions and being subjected to such silliness as not POINTING at a "lucky board" when they can see it.
In other words, I was saying that "salary should be commesurate with the amount of crap you've gotta take on the job" and when that goes up, the paycheck should also. There's morons in all sorts of career paths and eventually most of them get promoted OUT OF THE WAY of what needs to be done, or they end up realizing one way or another that they need a different gig. And again, I'm not intending anything personal here.
And yes, I agree on your observations of work quality vs. salary as well but it's been my experience that when the price goes up, you can be a lot more fussy among the larger pool of potential employees since you have a larger pool to begin with. Reading that the TA had to hire motormen off the street this goround does seem to suggest that there aren't enough people willing to do it from inside the usual promotion paths. That's unheard of at least to me and suggests that the "starting salaries" are too low and are thus resulting in folks being inducted into the service that wouldn't have cut it prior. That's where I was going with that rant.
Granted, I've been out of there for 30 years myself but still consider going to work for the Transit Authority as one of the better jobs I had, even if I really wasn't up to it myself and put up with a LOT of crap. I still get the warm fuzzies remembering hauling D trains out at 5:30am. :)
Seems to me that it would be more cost effective to hire conductors with an attention span that's longr than.................what was I saying?
The NYCT management is demonstrating that it feels that two people are required to safely determine which side of the train to open. If this is the case, then they lied to the arbitrator when they said that only one person was necessary to safely open train doors. There are two sets of doors regardless of how long or short the train is. This retrofit is an admission that OPTO is by definiton unsafe. TheY cannot logically install this new important feature for safety and still claim that only one person is required door operation.
When will they get around to removing those full width cabs, now that they logically killed OPTO. :-)
When will they get around to removing those full width cabs, now that they logically killed OPTO.
NEVER.. The operators like them !!
I must admit that I had the same thought. The two positions (door enabling and OPTO) are in opposition to each other. On the other hand, the same door enabling can be accomplished with technology. A transponder under the platform could be used to enable the doors on the proper side of the train while also making sure that the entire train is platfomed properly.
I Might head to Waashinton D.C. If I do I will get photos of the metro cars (I Will try to get photos of the CAF cars)Plus I will have a website about my trip it will be redy after vacation.
CAF cars are not in service yet and may not be by April...
Field trip is April 21...
Since the database crashed, I am reposting this info:
To all,
The plan for the Washington DC SubTalk Field Trip on April 21, 2001 will be as follows. In the unlikely event of any further, you shall receive e-mail notification if you are on the e-mail list. Updates will be posted here as well. E-mail oren@orenstransitpage.com to be added to the update list.
Those coming from up north will arrive on train 79 at Union Station at 9:50 AM. We will meet at Gate G in Union Station, outside of the Ladies' Room. Train 79 leaves New York (Penn) at 6:05 AM and Philadelphia (30th Street) at 7:43 AM. IF Train 79 is more than 3-5 minutes late, our departure from Union Station will be delayed by as many minutes as train 79 is late. I will probably be at Gate G with a cardboard sign reading "SUBTALK," more on that closer to the date. While we will wait for train 79, if you are in the DC/Baltimore area, do not be late because once Train 79 arrives, we leave.
Once we meet, we will head to the Metro and take the following trains. The times posted are the times the trains will run. This is totally flexible. If we see the CAF cars, we will change the plans as needed.
Red Line Lv Union Station 10:15 Ar Fort Totten 10:23
Green Line Lv Fort Totten 10:31 Ar Greenbelt 10:43
Green Line Lv Greenbelt 10:54 Ar Branch Avenue 11:41
Green Line Lv Branch Avenue 11:56 Ar L'Enfant Plaza 12:15
Yellow Line Lv L'Enfant Plaza 12:27 Ar Pentagon City 12:35
At that point, we will exit the system and will have lunch at the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City Food Court. The food court has a variety of food from pizza to hamburgers to Chinese. Everyone should be able to fill up the appetite formed after railfanning for 2.5 hours. There is about 45 minutes in which to get food, eat it, and use the bathroom. The trip continues with:
Yellow Line Lv Pentagon City 1:34 Ar Huntington 1:48*
Yellow Line Lv Huntington 2:01 Ar King Street 2:04
Blue Line Lv King Street 2:16 Ar Franconia-Springfield 2:27
Blue Line Lv Franconia-Springfield 2:35 Ar Rosslyn 3:03
Orange Line Lv Rosslyn 3:17 Ar Vienna 3:39
Orange Line Lv Vienna 3:47 Ar Metro Center 4:16**
Orange Line Lv Metro Center 4:28 New Carrolton 4:56***
Notes about part 2 of the trip:
*The Huntington branch can be omitted if the group decides we need longer for lunch, train 79 is delayed, or if we happen to see the CAF cars on the Green Line.
**Metro Center is an optional stop. I included it because it is the architectural highlight of the Metro but it can be omitted if we don't want to stop or if we are short on time.
***This is the latest train we should take to guarantee the connection to Amtrak Train 148 at New Carrolton
Train 148 to New York leaves New Carrolton at 5:51 PM and arrives in Philadelphia at 7:31 PM and New York Penn at 9:15 PM.
Photo ops: We will go through 60 of the 83 stations or about 72% of the system. We will most likely have layovers of more than 5 minutes at the following stations allowing for photo ops:
Fort Totten
Greenbelt
Branch Avenue
L'Enfant Plaza
Pentagon City
Huntington
King Street
Franconia-Springfield
Metro Center
Rosslyn
Vienna
New Carrolton
Union Station
Info on what type of film to bring is below.
MORE DETAILS:
What to bring: Camera and film are optional. The only real necessity will be money (details are below) and maybe a jacket. If you don't want to buy food from Amtrak, don't bring too much. You can not eat within the MetroRail system. I strongly do NOT recommend that you bring more than a backpack. If you bring film, 400 is the slowest speed you can use in the subway and get decent photos, I recommend you use 800.
Money: Day passes cost 5 dollars per person and are good all day. We will buy these at Union Station before starting out. Also, you will need to pay for lunch. That will probably cost no more than $20.
Transportation to/from field trip:
By train: You are responsible for getting your own train tickets. Both trains are unreserved. Please read on for instructions on making train reservations:
IF YOU ARE TRAVELING TO/FROM NEW YORK PENN STATION:
Buy a ticket for train 79 (Carolinian) to Washington Union Station. The train should leave New York at 6:05 AM and arrive at 9:50 AM. The date of travel is April 21. This is an unreserved train. For the return trip, buy a ticket for train 148 (NorthEast Direct) FROM NEW CARROLTON, MD to New York. The date of travel is April 21. This is an unreserved train. DO NOT buy a ticket for travel leaving Union Station UNLESS you plan on parting company from the group early. The field trip ends at New Carrolton. Train 148 will leave New Carrolton at 5:51 PM and arrive at New York at 9:15 PM. The round trip cost for these two trains is $136 ($68 one way).
IF YOU ARE TRAVELING TO/FROM PHILADELPHIA 30TH STREET STATION:
Buy a ticket for train 79 (Carolinian) to Washington Union Station. The train should leave New York at 7:43 AM and arrive at 9:50 AM. The date of travel is April 21. This is an unreserved train. For the return trip, buy a ticket for train 148 (NorthEast Direct) FROM NEW CARROLTON, MD to Philadelphia. The date of travel is April 21. This is an unreserved train. DO NOT buy a ticket for travel leaving Union Station UNLESS you plan on parting company from the group early. The field trip ends at New Carrolton. Train 148 will leave New Carrolton at 5:51 PM and arrive at New York at 7:30 PM. The round trip cost for these two trains is $82 ($41 one way).
IF YOU ARE TRAVELING TO/FROM ANY OTHER STATION IN THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR:
Buy tickets for trains 79 and 148 as needed.
If you are in the DC/Baltimore Area:
Driving directions to outlying Metro Stations are available at Metro's website at www.wmata.com. I was asked by someone in Baltimore where to park and I answered as follows. Greenbelt is the closest to Baltimore but if you drive about 15-20 minutes more, you can reach New Carrolton and you will have your car at the end of the field trip. Parking at New Carrolton is my suggestion. Use the Ride Guide at www.wmata.com (link above) to figure out what time you need to start out on an inbound train to Union Station. You probably want to tell it your arrival time is 9:45 AM (not 9:50).
As of now, there are no contingency plans if Train 79 is extremely late. Please stay tuned for more info!!!
Please e-mail oren@orenstransitpage.com by 7:00 PM on April 20th to RSVP. It is OK if you do not e-mail me to RSVP, but I would like to know about how many people are coming. Please include in your e-mail how you are getting to and from the field trip. This helps in figuring out who we are waiting for when we begin and how they are coming. Please also e-mail if you think you are coming but you are not sure.
Between now and the field trip, I will send occasional e-mails, the last of which will be the weather forecast and further information on meeting up. E-mail oren@orenstransitpage.com to be added to the e-mail list. Closer to the date, if you wish to describe what you will wear that day, e-mail oren@orenstransitpage.com.
We look forward to seeing you and we hope you can make the trip and meet some other SubTalkers! If you have any further questions, e-mail me at oren@orenstransitpage.com.
END
Now, you may have realized there is now HTML in the content above. The reason is that now all the field trip info is posted on my website at http://www.geocities.com/orenstransitpage/subtalkdc.htm. This should make communication easier. Bookmark that page! I will post when I update it. The e-mail list is still running. To join it, e-mail oren@orenstransitpage.com.
Sincerely,
Oren H.
Webmaster of Oren's Transit Page
http://www.orenstransitpage.com/
www.dvarp.org/newslinks.html provides daily listings of transit-related articles in the Philly, South Jersey, Delaware, and Eastern Pennsylvania press. I am sure there are such news update sites for other regions. Can anyone tell me what they are in your region? Perhaps this info, once compiled, could be added to the FAQ?
The web site http://www.libertynet.org/netis/ provides a detailed examination of the current proposals and the alternatives for a Northeast extension of the Philadelphia Broad Street Subway. In many ways, this line has paralleled the history of the New York Second Avenue Subway: needed, promised, but never materialized.
If the Second Avenue Stubway does get built in the next 15 years, will it be accompanied by a Philadelphia counterpart. What are the feeling of you Subtalkers after you review this proposal.
Anything that gets more mass transit for the riding public gets my approval. Just where did all those cars driven by the commuters from the suburbs supposed to get placed, the sky? Where would you find room for them? More drivers and pedestrians get killed and injured by the automobile than the railroad, but folks just do not get that.
Fewer cars mean less pollution, or do you need a carbon monoxide fix in the morning?
I like it so far. More rail coverage is badly needed. If the Broad Street line is extended I'd like to see additional capital funds dedicated to renovating and improving additional existing stations as well, to revive business centers and housing around key stations, offer ADA access (which also makes the subway shopper- and stroller-friendly).
Great ideas. Some of the Broad Street Subway stations look more like the ruins of a past civilzation that currently used stations. I'd like to see the same kind of redevelopment around the Market-Frankford stations as well. Since a lot of those stations are surrounded by abandoned buildings I'd love to see mass bulldozing followed by new transit-oriented developments.
Aside: Just where did we get the notion that real estate is disposable?
Anyway, I think the extension would help make this happen, because it would bring more traffic through the BSL tunnel, making rehabiitation more important to more people.
Mark
It's nice to see the site has finally been updated after nearly a year, however I don't believe this project will go forward any time soon, so long as SEPTA wastes billions on the SVM in lieu of traditional commuter rail.
My feeling is that the 2nd Avenue subway will never be built. Period. The city will do studies, et al but never put a shovel to the ground.
Amtrak is adding the popular quiet cars to 16 more corridor trains. Quote from Tuesday's Philly Inquirer "Business News in Brief":
"Amtrak expanded its no-cell-phone quiet-car service to 16 more trains on the Northeast Corridor. The first quiet car went into service late last year on the 6 a.m. train from Philadelphia to Washington. "The idea has proven very popular," Amtrak spokeswoman Karen Dunn said. On each of the 22 trains now offering the service, one car is designated quiet and its seats are filled on a first-come basis. Cellular telephone use is permitted on all others, Dunn said."
Which trains?
Before the SubTalk boards went down, I was asking all RTO employees when they pick for jobs in the B Division, and if they've already picked, then what job they picked.
I pick on April 26th. I know that if I'm lucky enough I'll get something on the A line on the AM even if its RDO relief. So I'll be out in the sunshine during the summer (hear that, zman?) months. And I'm not giving up my C line. I'll probably work that on the weekends.
So I'll ask again. When do you pick, and if you picked already, what did you pick?
I pick on 4-19(T/O).I'm going to any section that has a slice of the weekend off even if I have to give up the M line. Good luck with your pick.
Thanks, Mike. :-)
Good luck with your pick as well.
Like giving up the M line is a bad thing! :)
What if the only thing with part of a weekend off is the Extra List?
Well lets see A Division should start picking in late May. Since I have really no time on the job I should be picking in Late July just to stay on the Road Extra List.
All I can hope for is that next pick I can get RDO Relief somewhere.
I doubt you will be picking in late July since the pick is supposed to go into effect on July 1 for the "A" division
I picked on Monday April 2 . PM Switching Coney Island Yard Sat/Sun R.D.O.
Don't worry Cool J. When you get a little more seniority, you'll be able to pick better days off and where you wanna work.
Are you kidding this is what I want not to be on the road. No no lunches, no in and out when you arrive at the the terminal, no being one behind two behind etc. No customers complaing about the service. The only thing that could make it better is getting the fruit to go along with my Saturday Sunday and being able to get Christmas Week Off, this would inable me to be able to pick any vaction week of the year. As long as I dont have to work the road to keep my weekends off I dont pick it. I worked the road 1 pick in the last 4 years. I dont mind taking rides on my own time time just to see whats new or pass some time, but working the road every day is very stressful and when I work the road I only pick an M one tripper. P.S. For those who dont now what it means to get the fruit: All holidays off.
Of course I was kidding Cool J!
You're able to pick a yard job with S/S, and I've gotta hope that I'm able to pick a slot on the BOTTOM of the VR list.
Psst, wanna trade? :)
VEE ARR.
Unless it's all gone then.....
SLOPTO VEE ARR.
May 4, entirely too early in the morning. I want something out of Stillwell/CIY, 95 St (Brighton Beach, Bay Pkway, City Hall, Whitehall, 34/6) on either early AMs or Midnights. If not, I'll stay in the A Div and pick Mid-June on the 1.
Don't forget Alex that with the new pick, you can pick Shuttle jobs on the midnight tour starting out of 21 St-Queensbridge and West 4th Street.
Also there are no jobs starting out of Whitehall, they all start at City Hall on the N mostly, and only on the early AM's. And there's one job a piece starting at WTC on the E at around 5:22am, and at 34-6 on the B at 6:48 am (and boyyyyyy, that job's a doozie!), and there's a few jobs on the Q starting at 57/7.
If I were you, I'd try to get 5 days on the N/Q/W. At the worst, you may see two days at Astoria and three at Stillwell. Of course you may be able to get 4 or even 5 out of STL. Hope it goes AOK. I'm sure that you're a bit tired of the long commute to Van Cortlandt from Staten Island by now.
Do you really think any of the AM jobs will still be open by that time or am I just dreaming?
Personally, I think that you have a much better shot at the late Midnights than you do on the early AM's. See how it goes Alex.
Good luck.
So, zman, you're gonna deprive me of another shot at working with you? The "best in the business"? :-(
I've been going to therapy and anger management for a while, so now so I don't get as upset when they cross trains in front of me. And you won't hear me cussing and fussing all the way up at your position anymore. Besides, with the B being gone on the weekends next pick, it should be nothing but smooth sailing.
Tell me you'll reconsider before the 27th gets here.
>>>I've been going to therapy and anger management for a while...<<<
Oh really? It's more like the Euclid Avenue relay (There I Pee) and anger AT management. C'mon, who d'ya think yer foolin'?
As far as what I'm picking goes, I got hooked onto AM's so thatsa where I'ma staying fa now. (See, told you I can speak Italian). And the only way that I can do that is to pick either VR or AM extra. We'll see how it goes.
what is VR ?
In the RTO section, T/O's and C/R's approximately every 5-6 months have to pick a specific assignment to work for the next pick period (July 1st starts the next pick). The pick begins on a Monday morning with the #1 man in seniority and works it's way down the list.
As a T/O, the first jobs to go are usually either high penalty road jobs (penalty=$), yard switching, station switching and work train (miscellaneous) jobs.
Other than straight jobs, assignments available are:
Extra List--you receive a different assignment in the section that you picked every day. The days off selected are fixed for the length of the pick. Miscellaneous Extra List works similarly.
Vacation Relief "VR"/OPTO VR--you receive a different assignment every week. Assignments are available on all tours in all sections, you simply "bid" on the jobs that you wish to work on for that week. So say that this week you choose to work AM's on the C out of Euclid Av with Fri/sat off, and the next week you choose to work midnights on the A out of Far Rockaway with Mon/Tues off. If you don't want to work a specific job on the bid sheet, then don't bid on it and you won't get it. Regular VR slots number 1 to 70 and are picked on a seniority basis at the start of the pick. Bid sheets come out once a month and cover 4 weeks worth of assignments. #1 VR man gets to bid first, etc. Whatever job that you win on the bid, the days off that the person who normally works the job picked are the same days off that you get for that particular week.
RDO relief (RDO=regular day off)--same as a straight job except you get the "scraps" left behind. RDO relief slots are generally worked by junior men. How RDO relief works:
When someone picks a straight road job, they have to select days off. Say for example, the person selects C-214 with Wed/Thur off. Since all jobs must be covered every day, someone else has to work C-214 on Wed and Thur right? This is where an RDO relief person comes in. An RDO relief's weekly assignment might look like this:
Sun--A 224/ 639am-Far Rockaway
Mon--C 216/ 452am-Pitkin Yard
Tue--L 204/ 518am-Canarsie
Wed--off
Thu--off
Fri--A 215/ 716am-Lefferts
Sat--A 231/ 1007am-Far Rockaway
Whatever assignments and days off an RDO relief person selects at the beginning of the pick are fixed for the length of the pick. RDO relief jobs picked are restricted to one particular section, you cannot hop from one section to another for a specific pick. Sections in the B division are:
North-A/C/H/J/L/M
Queens-E/F/G/R and ALL combination road/switching jobs known next pick as "X" jobs. Regardless of the starting point and line worked of an X job (i.e. an X job working Brighton Beach on the Q line), that job for picking purposes only is considered a Queens section job.
South-B/D/N/Q/W/6th Avenue & Franklin Shuttle jobs.
RDO relief assignments are also available for station switching, yard switching, refuse collector and miscellaneous jobs. Assignments here are also restricted to one particular area as well.
That's it in a nutshell.
When you select your days off (RDO's), all seven possibilities are available being:
Sun/Sat
Sun/Mon
Mon/Tue
Tue/Wed
Wed/Thu
Thu/Fri
Fri/Sat
Each section and tour has a specific allotment of RDO's available, and unlike many other NYCTA departments, you can select whatever days off that you wish with whatever assignment that you like.
RDO selections go in seniority order with Sun/Sat and Sun/Mon the most popular. When all slots are filled for that group of RDO's (i.e. 48 Sun/Sat slots on the AM's in the south section), then no one else can select those particular RDO's for that tour & section involved.
This is why you sometimes hear someone saying that they went PM's to get part of the weekend off. Because if he wants to work in the south, the Sun/Sat, Sun/Mon and Fri/Sat slots may be all gone on the AM's, but they may be available on the PM's or even Midnights.
In Stations wre also have three tours (AM,PM, Nights). Like RDO we have Straight, RDO, Extra and VR. Our VR people pick each week and the list is published on Wed of each week. If an S/A VR does nto pick a job, one is assigned.
in Stations, we also have Lunch relief Jobs (LR) and Night Lunch Relief Jobs(NLR). LR jobs are resposible for escorting employess to/from part-time booths(often with police presence also), opening/closing anti-crime gates (entrances not open 24 hours.) For AM and PM LR jobs, the left-overs are mixed in with often RDO jobs- meaning you can get 3 booths and 2 lunches. For NLR Jobs we also deliver/pick-up internal mail to/from 370 Jay Street to assigned locations. NLRs also take lost property to designated locations. NLR has one twist- there is NLR-RDO where you work left over lunches.
Ex: I may be off Thursday and Friday-- Someone has to weork "my lunch" those days. This goes to NLR-RDO Jobs. If you poick that job you can have up to five different lunchesor as little as three (a pair of two day jobs and a single, a two day job and three singles or five singles.) There is one rub-- let's say you work Monday Night(Simday Overnight) and it is a Holiday. You'd work that job number but follow the instructions listed for "Holiday" which may include different lines/stations/times than the weekday or normal schedule.)
I work NLR and for the last two picks have worked NLR-RDO
I take it the "X" designation is replacing the "V" that was used for jobs like that, since V is becoming a road line. I imagine the new "V" would be apart of the "Queens" section. Is the G becoming apart of the south? (I also thought that B & D would become apart of the north, but I was told it would stay south even though the lines won't be going south anymore.)
Yes, the X is replacing the V designation for exactly the purpose that you had stated. When the connector opens, the Queens section will have the E/F/G/R/V/X.
I should pick on the Second week of the A Division pick. I may stay on the No.6 Line out of Pelham AM's with Sun/Mon off or I may go to the No.1/9 Line.
Didnt I tell you, that iwont be picking for a while.
I'll be going home to Metropolitan, a late PM job with weekends off. My first crack at operating over the new WillyB structure, and by then, some, if not all, new signals should be in service on the West End Line. After 26 months on the E, it will be time for some fresh air, less cab time, fewer total hours pounding the road, fewer passengers and questions, and a more comfortable motormans seat on the R40M/42 cars.
I don't blame you Bill, but that's one bit of a shift swing that you're doing there.
So far, the West End is still using the old signals, but that of course could change by July 1.
As far as the Williamsburg Bridge goes, it's easy. Wrap it going up hill, and when you reach the GT area, just take all the timers at 15 mph in both directions. Going into the portal, you've gotta take A106 ball (the first one is slow, no longer the second one) at 10 mph. Lately A106 ball has been taking names, if you know what I mean.
Jonathan Belcher reports that the MBTA wants to run the type 8s in revenue service on the "B" line after the track work is completed at the end of this month. I really wonder if new track will make a difference, and if so, what will they do...replace all the track like they did in '85? These trains should really be running on the "D", millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on raising platforms so the wheelchair ramp that is underneath the low-floor doors can be used. -Nick
That is awful news. From what I understand the Type-8 is a lemon it is built be a company that builds Bad cars (Cleveland San Francisco Los Angeles to name a few). When the stayed on the tracks the MDBF was only 600 miles. The Boeings will still be able to last another few years, and the MBTA should take breda to war on this. They will never be good cars IF THE MBTA is lucky they will be as good as the Boeings.
Breda built good cars for DC!
And they built dogs for San Fran. The Seattle hybrid diesel/ETB's are so bad that the trolleybus dept won't count them as part of the fleet. The company is now mostly owned by the Italian Government because no one in the industry was interested in buying them.
Washington should be tickled that they got one of the few Breda designs that worked! (Soon to be ex-gov.) Cellucci should be going to Italy to get some money back, instead of Canada. Hopefully, the Blue Line bid will allow "a Canadian company" to build the new cars!!
Note BREDA Makes the lrv's for the cleveland rta ANd heavy rail cars for the La metro and the metro in Washington D.C. And i live two towns away from breda in Littelton MA and i've never seen a train come out of that buliding.
Note BREDA Makes the lrv's for the cleveland rta ANd heavy rail cars for the La metro and the metro in Washington D.C. And I live two towns away from breda in Littelton MA and i've never seen a train come out of that buliding.
The Boeings will still be able to last another few years, and the MBTA should take breda to war on this.
They already have; they have stopped payments to Breda twice in the last year; but we are still left with the current situation. In addition to Breda, the MBTA should ask lawmakers to change the law that made them go with the lowest bidder...who happened to be Breda. If they did not have to follow that law, hopefully they would have had the brains to award the contract to Kinki-Sharyo; especially with the type 7s (which are made by Kinki-sharyo) since they are going to be modified to work with the type 8s!!! -Nick
FORGET ABOUT BREDA AND KINKI-SHARYO! How about the MBTA orders siemens low floor cars?
Since payments to Breda have stopped, I suppose they will rigorously test the cars on the B/Boston College before doing any more track work and/or accepting more cars and/or resuming payments. Hey, it's only been three years and three months since the first car arrived on MBTA property!
My understanding is that they're not replacing all of the track; just adding guard rail in some places.
I always wondered why the B runs on Comm. Ave. and the C on Beacon. I know the T labeled the lines A through E (with the A discontinued)but always wondered why they reversed the B and the C. To make it easier to know which line runs on which route, the B should run on Beacon and the C on Comm. Ave.
'Course, changing it after all these years would confuse the heck out of everybody. OTOH, all the GO's in NY confuse the heck out of everybody!
The letters on these two streetcar lines refer to the desintations rather than the streets:
B = Boston College
C = Cleveland Circle
In addition, the routes are lettered sequentially north to south:
A wAtertown (discontinued)
B Boston college
C Cleveland circle
D riversiDe
E hEath street
Ever look at a map? The lines are lettered A-E from north to south like this:
NORTH
A-Watertown
B-Boston College
C-Cleveland Circle
D-Riverside
E-Heath Street/Arborway
SOUTH
Also, B is the first letter in Boston College and C is the first in Cleveland Circle.
Aha. Thanks, fellas.
The new track will be good for all the streetcars that run on the B Branch
I would have posted this in the other thread about this, except it got so O/T I ignored it. Apologies if this has been posted already.
Remember, the Broadway line local stations will still be being rehabbed. They probably will have to do all trains express G.O.s on weekends, no room for N/Q/R/W on the express track.
Also, they may be planning on doing something with Rector, which will be the last Manhattan stop with the 70s tile (I think). That would reqire the N and R to cross the bridge with the Q for a few weekends.
The reason that I could possibly think of is that there might be an occasion where the 63 Street connection from the Broadway line will need to be used for General Orders. Which would require that one of the Express Tracks at 57 Street to remain clear. Access to the 63 Street connection from the Broadway Line can only be optained from the Express Tracks only. You must be on the Express Track to go through this connection. To have only one service would inable them to work around any GO's which would require the use of this connection.
But I think the (W) will be switching to the local track north of 42nd St anyway, stopping at 49th an on until Ditmars Blvd, Queens (not sure if it's making the Astoria express run.)
It's possible, although there are additional switches further north on either side of 57th St. Back in the 70s, N trains continuing on to Queens skipped 49th St. and switched over to the local track just before 57th.
In 1990, the short-lived N express switched to the local track between 34th and 42nd and stopped at 49th.
Not such a surpise, 49th Street is a significant destination, and they have to swutch to local anyway.
Arti
Yes, indeed. The maps had it that way, too.
It wouldn't run to Queens on a weekend, it didn't in the 80s...
I doubt it. The point of closing the Broadway local stations now is to get all of the work along the track (i.e., on the platform edge) done. As long as that's finished now, even if trains have to bypass stations due to construction, they can still run on the local track. (And even if they can't, it's probably possible to squeeze all four trains, at weekend headways, onto the express tracks. If necessary, reducing headways slightly on all four lines, or eliminating service on one only when necessary, is far preferably to never running the W into Manhattan at all.)
Monday, there were 2 LRVs on 2 track at Newark, with a bunch of firefighters doing training on them for evacs and whatnot. For some reason, the car I boarded came in on track 3, so they let us walk across 1 and 2 to get there. They had ticket inspectors for pax boarding and detraining at Newark.
Ask BMTMan about the tix inspectors at Newark, he knows one personal like >G<.
There has been tentative approval for a charter run of IRM's three PCC "L" cars that were used to film scenes in the upcoming "Ali" movie. There is a possibility of two charters on the same day. A $50 price, especially due to insurance expense has been quoted. Right now, Sunday, May 6 has been discussed. The following Sunday is Mother's Day. I would like the 20th as I am displaying at the East Penn meet May 4-5. When the final word comes down, you'll be among the first to know.
David Harrison
I am displaying at the East Penn meet May 4-5.
Yeah? It'll be good to see you; I'll be there, too, videos in hand.
As for the IRM charter, I'll probably have to wait for the video. I may be in Toronto during the 20th .....
--Mark
There'll be a surprise...I'm displaying my Acela Express/Northeast Corridor layout complete with catenary. Plus I'm trying to arrange a showing for Bachmann. The O scale "L"/subway is cooling its heels.
David Harrison
http://community.webtv.net/acelatrains
Look forward to seeing you both there... I'll probably be working the registration desk and the model contest, as usual (no, I don't have any models to enter, I just guard the table and take votes).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
If possible, I would prefer the IRM PCC charter *not* be on the weekend of the 20th. There is a Chicago Mayor's Office/IHPA Station Tour Charter (different than the ones I do annually with IHPA) being planned for the weekend of the 20th. I'd hate to see a conflict...
Graham
We all know that back in the day that transit was profitable and then it became and remained forever unprofitable. Here are some quick questions:
#1. In terms of 2000 money and 2000 buying power, how far would the 190# 5 cent fare go.
#2. What % of capacity would the current system have to carry (averaged over the course of the day) for things to be profitable at a $1.50 fare.
For example, if it was rush hour 24/7 would the TA make money? If at the current service levels all trains were packed full at all times would the current system make money. If those two questions were yes what is the optimal level of usage for maximum profit as a % of the absolute maxium capacity averaged over the course of the day? Can you extend this to other transit systems?
#3. In determining fares has anybody ever though about raising or lowering fares to the point where marginal revenue = marginal cost to maximize profit in a monolopy situation ot at least where margical cost = average cost?
#4. How much can secondary income sources improve profitability. These include advertisments, RoW usage (power or telecommunication), food vending, rented retail space and gifts/collectables.
Once we have an answer we can see if we can cause that answer to manifest itself.
#1. In terms of 2000 money and 2000 buying power, how far would the 190# 5 cent fare go.
Consumer Price Index (CPI) data started with the creation of the Department of Labor in 1913. There was no comparable data prior to that date. Rough estimates suggest that the $.05 in 1900 is equivalent to $1.00 in 2000.
#2. What % of capacity would the current system have to carry (averaged over the course of the day) for things to be profitable at a $1.50 fare.
Please, what do you mean by profitable?
3. In determining fares has anybody ever though about raising or lowering fares to the point where marginal revenue = marginal cost to maximize profit in a monolopy situation ot at least where margical cost = average cost?
The operating costs for various rail transit systems is available on the FTA website.
#4. How much can secondary income sources improve profitability. These include advertisments, RoW usage (power or telecommunication), food vending, rented retail space and gifts/collectables.
Some non-operational costs can reduce short term profitablilty. I'd look into the Grand Central rehabilitation before I'd get carried away.
I doubt that the NYC subway, or any transit system for that matter, can be profitable so long as there is heavy rush-hour peaking. Things would be different if somehow ridership could be spread out evenly throughout the day. Needless to say, that's very unlikely to happen.
(I doubt that the NYC subway, or any transit system for that matter, can be profitable so long as there is heavy rush-hour peaking. Things would be different if somehow ridership could be spread out evenly throughout the day. Needless to say, that's very unlikely to happen.)
For the subway, this already IS happening. And, sure enough, if you subtract out the cost of the ROW (tax dollars pay for roads), I believe the subways ARE profitable, or could be with a modest pay rise. If the commuter railroads were not so featherbedded, I'd bet they could break even on an "auto-equivalent basis" as well. They should.
As for the bus system, and bus systems nationwide, they are a social service for those too poor, old, young, or sick to have a car, and are required to provide service to ensure basic mobility on routes and at times that are massively inefficient. Many of these folks pay half fare, or no fare. In NYC, at least, PARTS of the bus system almost certainly break even.
What about debt service on the rolling stock? Does the TA pay the prevailing rate for electricity or do they get a special break from the State Power Authority? Does the TA pay real estate taxes on the buildings and facilities they own that are not along the ROW?
[What about debt service on the rolling stock? Does the TA pay the prevailing rate for electricity or do they get a special break from the State Power Authority? Does the TA pay real estate taxes on the buildings and facilities they own that are not along the ROW?]
Conversely, do car owners pay the cost of renovations to accomodate the handicapped? Does the government pay real estate taxes on the buildings and facilities that they use to maintain highways and roads? This swings both ways -- in fact, I think you can make it come out pretty much any way you want depending on your operating assumptions. But overall, I tend to agree with Larry that the subways could be profitable on an auto-equivalent basis. Most of the TA's budget consists of labor costs, and we know how efficiently the TA uses labor.
>>> We all know that back in the day that transit was profitable and then it became and remained forever unprofitable <<<
I think the only way to find out how the transit systems were profitable at the time when they run by private companies would be to look at the operating reports and see how expenses were distributed.
My guess is that the cost of labor was a smaller per cent of total operating costs then, even though the operation was much more labor intensive. The time of profitability was during the non-union no benefits era. Also, at the time the transit systems were profitable they were new enough that major maintenance such as replacement of El structures was not needed. If reserves were not being put aside for the eventual major maintenance, then part of the "profits" was really distributing the capital itself.
Tom
(Also, at the time the transit systems were profitable they were new enough that major maintenance such as replacement of El structures was not needed. If reserves were not being put aside for the eventual major maintenance, then part of the "profits" was really distributing the capital itself.)
I think you have a good point. First of all, in New York under the "dual contracts" the private companies were guaranteed a profit -- the City ended up paying their bonds. So transit never really was profitable if the cost of the right of way was included. Neither are road-based forms of transit. Later on, the private companies and the City just cash-cowed the asset they had inherited. There never was a three percent "capital reserve," which is what real estate owners typically put aside.
I guess the els and trolleys were profitable -- somehow they got installed cheap, and somehow you can't do that with light rail today. The railroads made a profit before 1915, then again they were built with borrowed money, most went bankrupt, and were bought up cheap. So you might say they weren't profitable, they just had sucker financing rather than public financing. Kind of like all that bandwidth out there today.
[First of all, in New York under the "dual contracts" the private companies were guaranteed a profit -- the City ended up paying their bonds.]
I don't think, though, that that would have been the case if the City had adjusted the 5c fare to match inflation, given the structure of the contract. The City chose to pay for the road rather than having the passengers pay directly.
Coming down to NYC on Monday, going to do the infamous J and L lines. School is out in NYC so anybody interested in tagging along is more than welcome. Anybody up for a night of railfanning?? The L through Brownsville and ENY at night should be exciting.
Marty.
You're gonna railfan on the J and L at night?
Two words of advice:
1) Stick all of your cash down your drawers (no, don't put your change there).
2) Carry on like you're best friends with Larry Hogue, the "Wildman of 96th Street".
OKKKKKKKKKKay, I'm not sure what the hell that means. I know the "J" is a very old line and "L" goes through Brownsville. I did this one last year daytime, did not look that bad. I know Livonia and Sutter looked a little rundown but on the whole, things looked okay. At night; well just have to do it....
later.
I work night lunch on the J and L and it is safe. Just dont flash your cash, no fancy clothes or shoes, no expensive cameras. Dont wear red and black or gold and black.
Act like you belong in the area. There are kooks in all areas of the system.
Watch for bloods and Kings, and dont be too much of a crip.
This Monday?
How's midnight at B'way Junction sound?
BMTman
If you want, gimme the directions. I'd love to ride and see the NYC night via the system. Never done it but will this time.
HAHAH he was kiddin around
You read me like a book....:-)
However, if you want to make this an afternoon or weekend (daytime) trip I have no problems.
BMTman
well first day we plan on exploring rockaway when marty comes down, The industrial park and waste disposal grounds, near Hammels Wye Shop, if anyone interested give me or marty an e-mail, also, we probably will do that J train trip NOT AT NIGHT (marty) again if anyone interested i nattending nd for more information Give me an E-mail
Yes thats right, Marty, Myself, And an observer on this group Handle is NYCTRANSIT, are going to be doing some adventure exploring on Rockaway around Hammels Wye Shop and Rockaway Industrial Park (abandoned) this trip is similar to a trip with Forgotten-NY.com in where we explore Neglected NY, and ofcourse we know great spots for pictures in that area. This will be in the Late Morning, If anyone is interested please give me an e-mail, everyone is welcome on this trip (no matter how much you developed a hatred for me, here is your chance to find out who I really am, haha like anyone would want to. If this does not interest you, We have another railfanning trip the following day, Tuesday April 10th. This will include the A, J, L, and IRT 3 Lines, We will explore Central Brooklyn and its uniquness. If you can make it on the 10th, we'll be more then glad to. Please be forewarned these trips (especially the first one) is not for the weak-hearted. Once again Give me an E-mail and we'll discuss the details.
If the weather forecasts are correct we may be near 70 by Monday. Looks like good beach weather and good railfanning weather.
I may be taking an A to Far Rockaway and then an N33 to Long Beach one of those days.
By "not for the faint hearted" what do you mean? Are we visiting a high crime area or something? I know the Hammels Wye area may be a bit questionable though, so I'll probably opt for the Tuesday trip.
Is it a long walk from the A to the N33 in Far Rockaway? Is it safe?
its safe don't worry I included further details in the email i sent you
Let us know where you will be. I have some friends who would enjoy meeting you. They'll reward you with a gift for metting my friends.
If you are really talented, they might even give you a tour of lower Manhattan.
Be sure to give a description of yourself so we'll know who to look for.
Are you coming, because from the sound of this post it would most enjoyable having YOUR for multiple hours. Who are your interesting friends that would give a tour of lower Manhattan. This sounds so very very exciting. Are we all permitted to come or only a segragated few that might have been chosen ones. OH those lucky few, If I could only make the cut.
You have peaked my curiosity, please acknowledge me by quenching my desire to know what they have to offer.
shit he talking about calling the police and raiding me at the meeting point. This is all ofcourse in sipirt of railfanning.
Are you coming, because from the sound of this post it would most enjoyable having YOUR company for multiple hours. Who are your interesting friends that would give a tour of lower Manhattan. This sounds so very very exciting. Are we all permitted to come or only a segragated few that might have been chosen ones. OH those lucky few, If I could only make the cut.
You have peaked my curiosity, please acknowledge me by quenching my desire to know what they have to offer.
And by Downtown Manhattan He probably Means 1 Police Plaza.
Yo marty we meet Jay St. at 2400, head on over to B'way Junction Take J to Fulton, Take 2/3 to 14th get the L and Ride to Canarsie right marty?? Good Luck, cause im sorry to say ur way too pale for that trip.
Good ol' SeveN.
Have Krylon, Will Travel.
Haha hope you "tag" along, seriously if anyone is willing please let me know by email so we know who to expect.
Way too pale...
I love a discriminating subway system.
i hear that, you know it yourself
Made plans ahead of didnt you Marty "the Party"
ARTICLEin daily news about Bronx woman being dragged by D train.
Peace,
ANDEE
While I won't comment on this specific incident, often the physical evidence does not support the media's account of a particular incident.
How did you get the link onto your post?
She could have been killed if she's been dragged into the tunnel.
Here is another great copy of Hot Times reposted w/ consent of the author.
Today, The consequences of cranial rectal inversion.
We have been given a fair amount of training over the years in the
rail industry. There is always something to learn no matter how long
you have been employed on the railroad. However, all of the
training in the world cannot prevent one symptom that is common
throughout not only this industry, but all others as well. It has
several titles, all of which mean the same thing. My personal
favorite is cranial rectal inversion (CRI), the proper medical name
for head up assitis. I believe the "New England Journal of
Medicine" did a study on CRI some years ago. Cranial Rectal
Inversion is also known in some circles as brain freeze.
CRI is a naturally occuring disease to which there is no known cure. There
are treatments available though. They usually include disciplinary measures
that remove pay from one's check. While CRI can be easily diagnosed, it is
commonly missed by those in conduting interviews and job applicant
screening. It generally does not readily appear with physical symptoms.
Today we are going to look at some of the results of CRI. I will
leave out the names of the employees involved to prevent further
embarrassment to them and of course, to prevent me from getting
sued into the next millennium. However, I will include one that
involved me and mention it as such.
Item number one occurred at the MoPac at teh south end of 26th
Street Yard in South Chicago Heights, IL back in the latter 1970's.
We used to block the Sauk Trail road crossing excessively while
switching at the south end of the yard and of course, upset many a
motorist. On the evening in question, a motorist yelled out to the
Trainman who was standing close to the crossing as to when they
were going to clear up and let the traffic begin to flow. Instead of
being polite, this guy tells the motorist to "Go and have a sexual act
performed on them", only not in such eloquent terms. He was a
little more, how should we say, direct. The now rather irate motorist
gets out of his car, walks up to the guy, takes his lantern out of his
hand and whacks the Trainman over the head with it causing him
to sustain a rather large gash and knocking him goofy. Well, goofier
than he already was.
The lessons learned here? First off, be careful what you say and
who you say it to. Number two, if some irate motorist approaches
you with intent of bodily harm, do not let them grab your lantern
and hit you. Lesson number three, should they attempt to attack
you, strike first. You are on private property and the rule book
states that "you shall protect the property." And being we are
treated more like property than human beings, this rule would
qualify us to protect ourselves. Lesson number four, see lesson
number one.
Item two; Rail burning made easy. There is a photo being passed
around the world wide web right now showing some serious burns
in the rail caused from wheel spin. I worked with a guy on the
Wisconsin Central who did just that at Schiller Park in the early
days of the WC. It wasn't bad enough he burned up the rails, it was
that he was told that he was doing it and continued to do so.
This character was called on the radio by the Trainmaster and told
that he was spinning the wheels. I guess he didn't believe the guy
and kept right on spinning away, When all was said and done, he
had burned clean through the ball of the rail and into the web or
narrow portion, rendering the track impassable. They were not at
all happy.
This guy contended that it was not his fault as he was not getting
any wheel slip indication in the cab. Whenever you develop a
harmonic wheel slip like this, you most often get no indication at all
as they are not slipping anymore, they are freely spinning. Even
though they were freely spinning, he was not moving at all. He
insisted to me that the unit had a bad order wheel slip relay and
that is what caused this event. I asked him if had bothered to pay
attention to the little things while this was occurring such as the
amp gauge and speedometer.
While sitting still with the wheels spinning, the amp gauge will be
indicating very low amperage as opposed to high amperage of
wheels not turning or turning very slowly. When sitting still and the
with the wheels spinning, the speedometer will indicate higher
speeds as the wheels are turning and measurements of rotation
are being made showing a speed as if moving. Also, when wheels
are spinning, they make a very distinctive whine against the rail as
they are starting to grind through the steel of the rail.
Lessons learned? Number one, pay attention to your gauges and
speedometer. Number two, listen to what somebody is telling you
and what sounds around you are saying.
Item three, making flat spots. An Engineer I worked with at the
MoPac got in major trouble for flat spotting wheels on a locomotive.
He had been warned by the Road Foreman of Engines earlier
about the fact that he was sliding the wheels on the engine when
he was stopping the cuts of cars he was switching. Instead of using
the decidedly better (and required) method of reducing the amount
of brake cylinder pressure as he slowed to a stop, he decided to
apply sand to the rails instead.
Sand in this situation is akin to using the coarsest grade of file
against the side of your car when doing body work. The wheels are
still sliding, but now through the assistance of sand as an abrasive,
he was grinding the wheels even faster than just with the sliding
wheels against the rails. He slid six inch flat spots onto the wheels
destroying them and getting some 60 days off without pay for his
efforts.
Lesson learned? When in doubt, read the air brake and train
handling rules carefully. It clearly states that number cause of flat
spots is "high brake cylinder pressure at low speeds on bad rail."
Item four, burning up wheels on a locomotive. Another Engineer on
the MoPac successfully destroyed four sets of wheels and all the
brake rigging on a GP15 locomotive when he failed to perform a
locomotive brake test after adding an engine to his consist. He let
the Brakeman handle all of the connections and away they went.
The brakes never fully released on that unit, something that a
locomotive brake test would have revealed. They went some 140
miles or so like this and it wasn't until they passed Lenox Tower in
Granite City, IL that the Operator there observed glowing orange
wheels that it was finally caught.
The brake shoes had burned completely off and the rigging itself
was now carving into the tread of the wheels. The wheels were
ruined first from the overheating which changed the temper of the
steel, and also from being carved up like a piece of balsa wood
against an X-Acto knife.
Lesson learned? Number one as Engineer, always do your own
connections. It is your job, not the Brakeman or Conductor's.
Number two, do the required locomotive brake test. Number three,
always look back at your train and consist when rounding curves as
required by the rules. Being that this was the fifth unit of the
consist, he should have been able to see something sparking or
glowing in the dark, or in daylight, observed smoke coming from
around the wheels.
Item five; protecting the shove. We have a couple of guys here at
the CNIC who failed to do so and paid the price as things went
horribly wrong. In case number one, the Conductor erroneously
assumed that he could get the entire cut of cars he was shoving
into the intermediate siding at Rantoul, IL. He even rode the shove
most of the way in to protect a private road crossing located there.
He dropped off at the crossing and told the Engineer to shove them
in the clear, which the Engineer did. When he stopped the cut in
the clear at the north end of the track, they had already run out of
the south end of the track, through the switch and onto the main
line. Fortunately, the train that had been on the main track had
departed several minutes earlier or it would have been really ugly.
The other case had a guy riding a cut of cars out of the yard at
Homewood and across the control point there. Being that the lead
car of the cut was not conducive to a good ride, the Conductor
opted ride the second car. A serious error in judgment. He now had
an obstructed view of the move. As they shoved, he was also
unaware of a set of hand operated crossover switches before the
control point lined to crossover from the track they were using to
the track next to them. They crossed over to the other track without
his knowledge and were now using that next track over. He is
looking at the signal on the track they are supposed to be using
and tells the Engineer they have the signal and to keep shoving.
They did have the signal all right, just not on the track they were
now using. The Engineer some considerable distance away was
unaware of what was now transpiring. The Conductor proceeded to
shove the Engineer past a stop signal instead. He was completely
unaware of what he had done until the Dispatcher came on the
radio and made a fuss about somebody going past a stop signal.
Busted!
Lessons learned? Always protect the shove. If it means riding the
move all the way to the end of the track, so be it. Also, when in
doubt, the safest course of action must be taken. Period! If it
means you have to walk ahead of the move, then so be it.
Item six; failure to properly inspect a car targeted by an equipment
defect detector. A train is stopped for hot wheels by the Manteno
detector. The Conductor inspects the car and determines it has
sticking brakes. He cuts the car out, bleeds off the air and
proclaims it safe to move to the Engineer. The Engineer involved,
probably one of the very best on this entire railroad, asks the
Conductor if the wheels on the car are okay. The Conductor tells
him they are and walks back up to the engine. They take off and
after not going very far at all, the train goes into emergency. This is
not good.
Another inspection reveals the very car the Conductor just dealt
with has derailed on the frog of the switch at South Peotone.
Apparently, he missed observing the brake shoe build up on the
wheels of this car. Brake shoe build up is the material from the
brake shoes that has overheated, melted off the shoe and adhered
to the wheels of the car. This now has the car riding on the build up
instead of the wheel tread and it significantly changes the dynamics
of the contact to the rail. The flanges of the wheels are now
elevated and not tracking properly to hold the wheels on the rails.
When the wheels hit the frog at the switch, instead of the flanges
guiding the wheels through safely, the wheels climbed over the frog
and came off the tracks and the car of course, derailed.
Lessons learned? Always thoroughly inspect the car on which the
defect is found. One defect may easily cause many other problems.
And finally, item number seven; Running over derails. This is also a
two-parter. The first involves a Conductor here at CNIC. He was
setting out at Kankakee Yard. There are derails at the south end of
the yard as it rolls downhill to the south. The Conductor tells the
Engineer that he is all lined up and the derail is off. The Engineer
starts to shove back. When it is too late, the Conductor realizes
that the derail is off all right, but on the wrong track. The cut rolls
over the derail by two car lengths, but didn't derail. These are one
way derails in service here meaning they only derail in one
direction. In this case, that would be in the southward direction to
protect from cars rolling out of the yard. There is no need to protect
cars from rolling into the yard as it is highly unlikely this could ever
happen.
But wait, it gets more interesting. Seeing that he has made this
mistake, the Conductor decides to correct the situation. Instead of
reaching under the car, unlocking and removing the derail, he tells
the Engineer to take them ahead instead. Bad move, very bad
move. Both cars wind up derailing as a result.
The other part of this item involves yours truly. t was 1979 and I
was hostling at the time at the MoPac. I was about to bring an
engine onto the east fuel track at the roundhouse for servicing. I
pull up to the derail and blue flag and stop. The unit I was operating
was a GP15 and was long hood forward as I was backing up to the
track. My helper gets off, turns off the blue light and disappears
from view as he takes down the blue flag and removes the derail.
As this is taking place, I observe the General Diesel Foreman
standing in the doorway at the north end of the roundhouse
watching this ritual take place. I should mention that this particular
Foreman was well despised by all. He suffered from a severe case
of "better railroading through harassment and intimidation"
syndrome.
My helper comes back into view and gives me a back up sign. I
begin to move towards the fueling station when all of a sudden, the
engine jerks and leans way over and then drops back down. I
immediately dump the air and stop. When I get off to see what
happened, I noticed the derail still in the derailing position and
sitting directly under the fuel tank of the locomotive.
The General Foreman then comes running over and tells me that
he is going to pull me out of service for running over a derail and
proceeds to read me the riot act about being unsafe. I quickly make
mention to him the fact that he was standing there observing all of
this and took no measures or steps to prevent this from happening.
I also told him that as an officer of the carrier, one of his
responsibilities is to prevent violations from occurring and unsafe
moves from happening. I said that I would freely mention in the
investigation that as a witness to this entire event, he took no steps
to prevent it from happening. I also mentioned that from my
vantage point in the cab running long hood forward, I could not see
for a fact that the derail was still in place and was relying solely on
the instructions of my helper. Needless to say, I was not removed
from service and there was no investigation. We merely grabbed a
spike maul and shoved the derail off the rail and concluded the
move. The guy had unlocked the derail, he just didn't pull it off the
rail for some unknown reason. CRI striking again I guess.
Lessons learned? Always double check your line up and derails for
proper alignment. Norfolk Southern has taken this a step further by
requiring the "double check." That is, the Engineer asking the
Conductor on the radio if he has double checked the route to
positively ascertain that all switches are properly lined and all
derails removed.
My own personal lesson learned was to now always stop far
enough back so that I could see the switch and/or derail involved
from my vantage point to positively ascertain that the person
operating them had indeed, done so properly. Something I still do
to this very day.
And so it goes.
Tuch
Is it my imagination, or do the Redbirds have more usable interior room than the R-62s? I've often felt that the Redbirds are roomier, even during rush hours.
Does anyone know the interior dimensions of the 2 cars?
Thanks.
The interior dimensions, including cabs is: 51'4" x 8'9 1/2" for all Division A cars currently in use.
Source is the Table 9D-12 NYCT Rolling Stock in the Manhattan East Side Transit Alternatives MIS/DEIS on the MTA website.
BUT, if you have fullwith cabs in four of ten cars your interior usable space has been deminished!. If the unused cabs were removed, making "trailers" then we'd have some thing.
The R/44 and R/46s were the BEST examples of both worlds. Full with cabs for the Conductor and engineer and more seating for the travelers.
avid
Do the R44 and R46 really have more seating? It feels like less to me. Even if they do, it kind of sucks. No matter where I sit on my (F) train, it's cramped as hell. Give me the straight sideways seating of the R62, R142, and everything before the R44 anyday. (Preferably the bench.)
:-) Andrew
The R-27 was the first train on the IND/BMT with the horrible all sideways seating. The R-44 was actually a reactionary design, except for the buckets.
Well, how about that! It might just be my long legs, but I hate that "longitundal" seating on the R44,R46, and R68. I actually think the R142 is the most comfortable car currently in service.
:-) Andrew
The R-142 seats have horribly uncomfortable curves. Redbird seats are better.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with Pork on one aspect of the R142 vs. Redbird debate.
Because it's the only one argument I make in which I consider the Redbirds to be BETTER?
Oh, I don't consider the Redbirds to be better in all ways.
Let's see...hmmm...well...um...well, I guess those rust holes are starting to become a bit unsightly.
Yes, you could say I'm not the greatest fan of the R142 (except for the novelty factor, which I suppose is worth something), while there is much in the Redbird that I like. Sorry.
Go figure. I'm proably alone in this, but I like the curvature of the R142 seats. It feels good on my back.
:-) Andrew
Next you'll tell us you like the R40 seats!
The Redbird/R32/R38/R42 seats are extremely comfortable. (Aside: Are they all the same? I may be imagining it but I seem to find R32 seats just a hair more comfortable than Redbird seats. Anyone else?) The R40 seats are terrible, with the R142 seats only a bit better. The bucket seats aren't great but they're not awful either, except when filled by people who don't fit in the buckets.
The most comfortable cars currently in service are the redbirds and the R-32/38s.
The 142s are okay except that the bench was designed for people with supremely small butts. The bolster that is supposed to provide lower back support is somewhere around the top of my pelvis--two inches too low to do anything but keep me from sitting all the way back. What dimwit designed these things? Do they not fit anyone else? It's so frustrating that such a well designed piece of equipment could have such a glaringly uncomfortable and incorrectible (until the first GOH which will be either in six weeks or thirty years, depending on which SubTalker you ask) error.
ARGH!
Dan
"What dimwit designed these things? Do they not fit anyone else?"
Before I post the following let me remind you that I am not trying to stereotype or offend any of the subtalkers here; but simply want to post some factual information that may have something to do with this question.
Remember that the R142As were designed by the Japanese. In Japan (and other asian countries) the population is a lot higher than the United States, so everything is more cramped. In addition, I believe Asians are known statistically for being shorter than Americans (why I don't know). This is why Japanese cars (i.e. the Honda) are small. In other words, I think Kawasaki probably used an average body of one of their own instead of an American. As for the R142s, I believe Bombardier followed Kawasaki's design; even though they didn't build as nice of a car in my opinion. -Nick
Amercians also being the heavest people on earth statistically, should also explain why fitting in the smaller seat is so differcult.
I know many other countries where people have smaller butts, this works out just fine.
BTW: When you say American, do you mean white black, latino?
"BTW: When you say American, do you mean white black, latino?"
I am referring to all that live in the United States :-) -Nick
BTW: When you say American, do you mean white black, latino?
When I refer to an American, I refer to someone born or naturalized in the United States of America. When I say white, I mean the color of a garbage truck. When I say black I mean the color of coal. And when I say Latin I'm talking about the language spoken by Romans.
Race is a myth concocted by losers seeking to oppress, and maintained by losers seeking special treatment at the cost of others.
When I say white, I mean the color of a garbage truck.
I call that gray.
Hear Hear! We're all mongrels on this bus.
That is total crap. For one thing, how do you explain the seats manuactured by Bombardier, a Quebecois company?
The seats were ordered by the TA, and they would have been the same had they been built in Japan, America, India or by penguins in Antarctica.
And it also doesn't explain small cars coming from Japan. Japanese companies manufacture plenty of cars, from sedans to pickups to SUVs to roadsters. And what? Was Geo a Japanese car?
The only reason people think that cars in Japan are smaller is because while American companies built these giant, lumbering gas-guzzlers, Japan came out with small and efficient vehicles, and the American companies had to catch up.
And do you think that Honda is one car? Honda makes a variety of vehicles of various sizes. They also make Acura. My family owns a rather large Acura sedan that's bigger and roomier than a lot of old American shitwagons.
Hell, my 1987 Maxima probably has more legroom than the crappy and larger 1983 Oldsmobile it replaced.
And what? Was Geo a Japanese car?
Chevettes and Plymouth Horizons too...
Remember those?
Chevettes and Plymouth Horizons too...
Remember those?
No.
I'm younger than some of those cars.
"R-142A's were designed by the Japanese" thats wrong. MTA designed it and gave the blue Prints to Kawasaki and Bombardier. it is like that world wide. The original design of the trains was made by the TTC of toronto which NYC liked and bought.
If you think that Kawasakis are small and cramped, then I suggest that you come to Philly and take a ride on The B-IVs (IMO, they are not cramped at all), then ride on the M-4's (they are very cramped). BTW, guess which fleet was built by Kawasaki?
>>> Remember that the R142As were designed by the Japanese. In Japan (and other asian countries) the population is a lot higher than the United States, so everything is more cramped <<<
I doubt that this is the reason for the problem. It was true when the Japanese first stated importing automobiles in the early 60s. The cars were designed for the two lane highways and relatively short distances to be traveled in Japan, and the passenger compartment had too little headroom and leg room. They were very aware of the shortcomings quickly, and within two years were designing the cars for the American market.
I am sure Kawasaki is not so provincial that their engineers were not aware of the average size of Americans. It is possible that they scrimped on the size of seats because the specs called for a given number of seats, and when they had to be made narrower to fit that number in the given space, the other dimensions such as the height of the bolsters were adjusted proportionally thanks to computer aided design.
Tom
the seats were solely designed for posture reasons by a seperate u.s. company.
Probably because the seats are installed in the final assembly plant in Yonkers.
The available seating on the R-142 gives each person more room than any previous car.
The bench is shorter because the doors are wider so that the bench is designed for seven seats, not eight. But it's not one eighth smaller, so each person gets more space. There's a bar in the middle which divides the benches into 3 on one side and four on the other.
The transverse seats like on the R-44/46 may provide more total seating, but the way it is broken up into 2-seat units makes much of it "psychologically unusable" most of the time. People are reluctant to sit down next to strangers, except when the train is really crowded. In rush hours the seats may all be filled, but at other times at least half stay empty, even as people stand, because of this psychological barrier. Longitudinal bench seats, like on the Redbirds, the R-32/38, and the R-142 do not have this problem. The individual but longitudinal seats on the R-62 have it to a lesser degree.
I don't mind if people have psychological problems. This just means that there are more seats available for me when I board at a later stop, because I take any seat into which I'd fit.
Your right Dan, we all hve our "bubble of space" that we try to maintain. It shrinks or expands with our environment. We wounldn't fill the cars seats from one end to the other. We naturally spread out, taking the best seats first, window or door seats. Vacant seats are left inbetween until the capacity is such that fat ladies wiggle in. Myself , I get on early enough to get a choice seat, if its not occupied by the homeless.
avid
The most democratic cars are the R/32s and R/38s and R/42s . The door seats go first. People will slide a little to make room. Some will try to spread out in a greedy manner or put packages on seats as well. The last seats to go are the two-fers at the ends of the cars. They are the least comfortible, or most intimate depending on your point of view.
avid
Why?
If I enter an empty car in which nobody is sitting, I go for the twofer (under the expectation that nearly all the seats would eventually be filled).
They have the most seats of any NYCT car ever (old BMT stuff excepted). 76 seats on cars with no transverse cab. I posted about this before, or do you not read responses to your own posts?
If you don't like the seats, stand. That's what you'd be doing anyway if the car were bench. If the car were arranged with bench seating, there would be around 10 seats less. Sure, more standees could fit, but that's only additional space in the area furthest from the doors. You know, that seemingly ficticious place called 'all the way in' conductors keep talking about but nobody goes to? By putting seats there you get people to take up that space.
I agree somewhat though, the conversational seating does sometimes feel cramped. But wouldn't you rather a cramped seat than stand? Or, be able to sit facing forward? Or having more places to sit per car with only one 'neighbor'? How 'bout an arm rest? On the R-142, the entire train, there are exactly four seats where you can sit facing forward (and four for backward) comfortably.
I posted about this before, or do you not read responses to your own posts?
Nothing personal, my man. I remember it. But I tend to take everything I read by anybody on here with just enough salt to hear the other side. Again nothing personal. After all, look at all the contradictory information about the R68's.
:-) Andrew
I thought the topic was interior room, not posterior room!
The R/44 "B" cars, the ones without cabs utilize the interior space to the maximum. The R/46 "B" cars are next! They have four fewer seats then the R/44s.
As for comfort or the lack there of , the R/40s bring back uncomfortable memories. I wish the GOH had addressed that problem with a new mold that resembled the human form. The truly worst were the R/10 retro fits going from sprung rattan to lumbago assaulting fiberglass. The R/9s were no better.
For bench only seating the buckets should be eliminated. A full house just doesn't fit!
The seating in the laterial types should have a softer or less pronounced bucket, too many of us, myself included have a "hangover"
of sorts.
The current crop of redbirds are okay. I would advocate they be saved, fitted with bunk-bed-bench-seating as a flypaper type rolling stock for the evening indigenous nesters. Maybe change the lighbulbs to warm while instead of cool white, And some just not working.
This would make the other interiors that much more usable.
avid
The R/44 and R/46s were the BEST examples of both worlds. Full with cabs for the Conductor and engineer and more seating for the
travelers.
From The New York Subway: Its Construction And Equipment
A novel feature in the construction of these cars is the motorman's compartment and vestibule, which differs essentially from that used heretofore, and the patents are owned by the Interborough Company. The cab is located on the platform, so that no space within the car is required; at the same time the entire platform space is available for ingress and egress except that on the front platform of the first car, on which the passengers would not be allowed in any case. The side of the cab is formed by a door which can be placed in three positions. When in its mid-position it encloses a part of the platform, so as to furnish a cab for the motorman, but when swung parallel to the end sills it encloses the end of the platform, and this would be its position on the rear platform of the rear car. The third position is when it is swung around to an arc of 180 degrees, when it can be locked in position against the corner vestibule post enclosing the master controller. This would be its position on all platforms except on the front of the front car or the rear of the rear car of the train.
One of the reasons that R62/R62As don't have as much interior room as the redbirds is that the R62s were built with acoustical and thermal insulation betweeen the car skin and the interior walls in order to comply with transit noise and energy conservation requirements. Also, the R62s have door operators in the swing panels whereas the Redbirds do not. I hope that answers your question from a technical point of view.
An "Critic's Notebook" article in the New York Times today in the Metro Section speaks to the upcoming demolition and replacement of parts of the TWA terminal at Kennedy Airport. Part of the structure has been designated a city landmark, but a smaller part of that is slated for demolition in a compromise with the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
Architecture Hands Off the Baton to Preservation
This piece argues that architects, rather than preservationists, should be more interested, involved, and vocal about how to improve the terminal. For example:
"Nothing short of a private Gulfstream can bring back the days when jet travel was an invitation to romantic fantasy. But the alterations now being contemplated for the T.W.A. terminal do not even try. Once again, an opportunity is being lost to create culture from crisis. Architecture is being left out of the loop."
Or:
"The scandal of the present threat to the integrity of Saarinen's landmark building is that it has been left to preservationists to intervene in what ought to be an issue of the highest priority for contemporary architects."
The related news story can be found here: Airport Growth Squeezes the Landmark T.W.A. Terminal or on the front page of the Metro Section of the paper version of The Times.
If I may add my own editorial comment, look at the disfunctional peice of crap for a transit structure that resulted when preservationists were ignored during the destruction (okay, "reconfiguration," if you want) of Pennsylvania Station. Perhaps if architects and preservationists, who likely both have an appreciation for the aesthetic and the functional, were to join together to oppose the supposed dunderheads in the Port Authority, a truly great monument to modern transportation could result.
If I never have to use JFK again in my life it'll be too soon...
-Dave
If I never have to use JFK again in my life it'll be too soon...
Ah, but there are two words that describe JFK's big advantage over Newark or LaGuardia: Jet Blue.
I always found JFK easy to arrive at, but easy to leave from.
Arriving at the Delta terminal, for example, is a piece of cake- on my way out of the airport with my luggage in 15 minutes. But catching a flight there meant running the maze and a poorly placed security checkpoint to find baggage check-in, then finding gates not logically arranged.
There are things to like about the airport. Like knowing that your plane does not have to land right at the start of the runway and then brake like crazy to avoid an unscheduled swimming lesson in Flushing Bay for passengers...
What's bad about JFK? I've never used it, but I want to use it the next time I go to NYC, just for a change of scenery from LGA. I like taking the earliest flight to NYC from ATL, and that goes to LGA, so that's why I haven't used JFK.
Well, from a single trip's observation, not counting things like the fact that its totally under construction (so is EWR, so is SFO, YYZ, etc): The many-small-terminal arrangement is terrible. If you have to transfer terminals, allow a couple of hours just for that. (Airtrain won't really solve this since each terminal is not getting its own station like the Newark Monorail.) The small terminals require duplication of services (check in, baggage claim, immigration, customs, food service, etc) so that none of these services were completely adequate. For instance the British Airways departure lounge is only really busy from around 4pm to 10pm. The rest of the day there's not going to be many people around. There's less incentive for the private companies to offer decent food service or other retail operation for only six busy hours. In a larger terminal airport, for instance EWR, the scale of the terminal requires and encourages more passenger services (particularly this was noticable at immigration and customs at Terminal 7 @ JFK. Long lines when flights arrived since the immigration & customs areas are very small).
Other than that, it's not particularly easy to get to; it's further away from midtown than EWR, the money I saved on a cheaper JFK flight I spent on a car service on the way home (and please, even knowing I'm a transit buff don't tell me I could have taken the "A" train, then the PATH, after an 8 hour flight, back to Jersey City during evening rush hour with two suitcases and 3 litres of scotch :-) The last time I tried to juggle that much stuff on a train while travelling I got pickpocketed because I couldn't pay attention to everything.)
I'll take Newark any day especially on returning home. Big immigration & customs hall, less waiting, easier to get to/from even if your destination is Manhattan.
On the other hand if your destination is exotic you're more likely to find a direct flight at JFK.
Your points about JFK and the small terminal syndrome are well-taken. I have found the JFK terminals easy to arrive at by plane then leave to go home, but confusing to drive to then take a plane.
Not to nitpick, but you may be wrong about AirTrain. To begin with, each terminal will have its own station - though you'll need to use an enclosed walkway/moving sidewalk to reach AirTrain. Then another moving sidewalk when you get off the train (unless you're in Terminal 4, where AirTrain will be inside the building.
We'll see how it works out. Travelers are adaptable, and AirTrain offers them something they never had before. We need to try to be open-minded (sometimes this is difficult for Subtalkers...)
We'll see how it works out. Travelers are adaptable, and AirTrain offers them something they never had before. We need to try to be open-minded (sometimes this is difficult for Subtalkers...)
One thing that might help Air Train gain acceptance is the fact that many of the people using Kennedy airport are foreigners, therefore more likely to be accustomed to using mass transit than Americans.
Yes, good point.
Airtrain has got to be better than the present arrangement. Because of this it will be a winner.
Simon
Swindon UK
I'll have to disagree with you on that one, Dave... I usually travel to the west coast from JFK even though I have to pass Newark to get there. NJCL to NYP, A train to Howard Beach, bus to JFK, takes a little over three hours off-peak, and there's no delay in the terminal - you have a bit of a walk, perhaps, but everything is moving. NJCL to NWP, bus to EWR, takes about two hours, but then it's an interminable wait for everything once you're in the terminal and the gate you are initially assigned is almost never the gate you actually leave from. And it's far more crowded - like the Lex Express at rush hour.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Well, that's fine with me, you keep going to JFK and staying out of my way at Newark. :-)
By the way that gate reassignment problem seems to be only a Continental problem. I've never had that happen to me at terminals "A" or "B".
-Dave
Despite living closest to Newark, I don’t hold out any great hopes for its future:
1) Newark & LaGuardia both suffer from the fact that there is no space to build any more runways. With two parallel runways, Newark is exposed more to weather delays if wind prevents using them both.
2) Access to Newark has been horrible over the past few months due (IMHO) to very bad planning by the PA. I understand that they need to repair the monorail as it was dropping to bits due to poor design/construction, but did we need to suffer through: Parking Lot E closed to build the deck, no monorail, multiple roadworks, Terminal C being rebuilt and extended all simultaneously? If the roadworks had waited until the monorail was running and the new train connection was working, then the agonies of getting there would be a lot less.
On the other hand, JFK has plenty of space. I am hoping that the Air Train will be extended back to Penn Station, then getting there will be a breeze!
>>dunderheads in the Port Authority
Same people that built the new Tower 2 times larger then needed. They built the new tower first becasuse FAA regs says the tower has to be 1.5 times taller than the tallest structure on the airport.
Then they went and cancelled the new LARGE international arrival buildings (Terminal 1) and redesigned it much smaller and shorter. Now you have this huge skinny tower sticking up out of no where and could be seen for miles. Poor planning.
What you write is total bull. A tall structure is a great structure and the control tower looks great from a distance, and it isn't bad that the controllers can see farther. I say they could have built it even taller.
And why do you think it's poor planning? It's an airport, not the Port Jeff mall. Besides it's a handsome tower. And Terminal 4 (thenew IAB, effectively) is starting to look pretty good.
Better than the FAA's engineering job at some airport down south where the colloms in the control tower needed to support the radar above are so large the controllers can't see parts of the runway.
Whoops.
Needless to say, it's being rebuilt.
Well, at Newark they're building the new tower out by the Hotel in the parking lots. So if they ever want to expand a terminal upwards, they can't....
-Dave
Muschamp's article is a very thoughtful piece, although I don't agree with him 100%. Here's the key paragraph, in my opinion:
The scandal of the present threat to the integrity of Saarinen's landmark building is that it has been left to preservationists to intervene in what ought to be an issue of the highest priority for contemporary architects. I say this not to discount the value of preservation, but to point up the failure of architects to respond with sufficient urgency to a crisis that preservation alone cannot resolve. Preservation is great, but where's the creative intelligence going to come from? The architectural community should respond more aggressively when alterations in design and function are contemplated for a building of this caliber.
As he points out, what is most needed here is involvement not only by people who are simply interested in saving the old but involvement by visionaries who are skilled at preserving the old and adapting it to the present. Adaptive reuse isn't enough, although it's better than nothing (Richmond's Union Station, now a science museum, comes to mind); neither is evolutionary development (Washington's Union Station has lost much of its charm and grandeur because the cavernous interior has been so subdivided as to lose all sense of proportion - although it's better than not being there at all). The key words are creative intelligence, and there are people within the preservation movement that have it. Hopefully they are or will become involved with the proposals for Saarinen's terminal.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
IEEE
THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS, INC.
NY Section
Rail Rapid Transit Vehicle Innovations Forum
April 24, 2001, 6:00 to 8:00 PM
HOST: Nortel Networks
320 Park Avenue, ( 50th ST) New York City
The IEEE NYC Section Vehicular Technology Society Chapter will sponsor a technology-sharing forum on the New York City Transit R-143 Rail Car propulsion, control, and signage systems. The lead panelist, Mr. Erwin Schaeffer, New York City Transit's Project Manager for the R-143 contract, will explain and answer questions on this fleet of new technology, Rapid Transit vehicles.
Systems engineers, suppliers, installers, and operators are invited to share insights. Future IEEE NY Section, VTS Technology Sharing forums are being planned for:
Fiber Optic Communication networks for Rail Vehicle control, Automatic Bus Location and Control Systems, and
Wayside and Railcar PA and Customer Information Systems
There is a $35.00 charge for the forum and refreshments commencing 5:30 PM.
Advance registration is required for admission. IEEE Members and nonmembers may register for the April 24, 2001 forum by sending $35.00 checks payable to IEEE NY Section to Brad Craig, Louis T. Klauder and Associates, 317 Madison Avenue, Suite 1621, New York, New York 10017. If you are an IEEE member, please provide your membership number and indicate if your interest in participating In one or more of the planned forums.
Additional information regarding program specifics can be obtained by contacting Mr. David Horn of Fluor Daniel Infrastructure, at (212) 947-7110, or by e-mail at david.horn@fluor.com.
How technical are those sessions?
Arti
As a former IEEE member (back when we actually built things here) they are designed for pocket-protector electrical engineering types, go into the formulaic aspects of the designs, practicum and so forth. The expectation in IEEE meetings is that folks come with a technical knowledge so there's a lot of nomenclature tossed about that is expected to be known by those attending ... sorta like programmers getting together and talking about stacks and exception handling and things like that.
Might be quite dry ... but if you're willing to sit through it, there's usually handouts that you can take home and decode at a later time. You'll definitely be hearing specifics of problems encountered and what's to be done abou them even if your ears are ringing for days afterward. I'd go myself if it weren't so far away from where I am.
Thanks! I wonder why don't they have discounts for IEEE members (being one?)
Arti
Good question ... they usually DO have a slightly higher price for non-members - I was a member of the Schenectady (GE) section and there was never "pay one price" ... :)
Used to be the member of broadcast, and computer, but the times have changed and I've lost the interest in video :-) although, I remember dicounts in that section.
Arti
Heh. I was Assistant Chief and then Chief at WFTI-TV54 (also anchored the news) before they became a "PrayTV station," built NY-SCAN for NYS, and spent many years in radio in NYC in the 60's and 70's and was involved in designing the predecessor to WTZA62 (now WRNN). Got into the computer side automating master control and edit suites. You can make more money selling paint these days. :)
IEEE, SBE, AFTRA, IATSE ... now I battle Microsoft for a living and play with trains. Heh.
Where's Stephen Bauman? Steve, would you like to go and summarize what you heard there on Subtalk?
sorta like programmers getting
together and talking about stacks and exception handling and things like that.
I don't know if you saw what I wrote about the R-142A's computer system, but it would have caused a stack overflow eventually...
Anyways, don't programmers have more interesting things to talk about than stacks (I did, however, have a few four letter words to say to a group member working on a project with me a few years ago who forgot to set the size of the stack on our demonstrating machine before a class presentation so our software crashed it three quarters of the way through our presentation to the class)? Exception handling is more interesting, and from what I've gathered here is also something that needs to be worked on a bit in the software used on the R142/142As.
-Robert King
Heh. Most of the programmers I know only want to talk about what Captain Kirk would have done and find trains boring because you can't steer them into a wall. And don't feel bad about improperly set stacks and buffers - after all, every time Bill Gates does a demo, he manages to steer the train right into the bridge abutment much to the amusement of the trade magazine columnists. :)
And I can just TELL the hand of the mighty Gates is behind the 142's ... probably Windows CE (or WinCE for short) ... 'nuff said.
At least it's fun to get something working in BG domain. At least doable within means :-)
Arti
Does keep me busy, better than 90% of the code I write is what we refer to as "Sister Cleo code" (clairvoyance, or the ability to anticipate Billyware screwups and dance under, around and beside Microsoft's bugs so they don't splash on OUR shoes) ... but yeah, every time Billy screws up, my cash register rings ...
That's why I wouldn't be the LEAST bit surprised if the 142's are running NT ... and why my favorite language is STILL PL/1 ...
I remember PL/1. Cool language - of course I programmed PL/1 on an IBM 029 Card Punch...
That was pretty much the only way ... paper tape broke. :)
I remember it too... I worked for IBM once upon a time, mostly in the cash register business, but near the start of my time there I was on the PL/1 compiler change team (fixing compiler bugs).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I always thought that PL/I was a ploy by IBM to waste computer time and enrich their pockets.
I was busy writing missile simulations at the time I used it. The PL/I compiler had the annoying habit of "fixing" syntax errors and running the code without telling you. Of course, the fix was invariably wrong and 3-4 hours of a simulation were worthless. I think that computer time was billed at around $1,000/hour back then. This was back in the batch days and one was lucky to get 2 or 3 runs completed per day.
The thing that saved the project was using a CDC6600. This was a very fast machine, compared to the IBM 360 fare. It had an archaic OS and a FORTRAN IV compiler. However the machine ate up code and spit out results so quickly that results came back an order of magnitude sooner.
I guess I don't feel too bad about not checking to make sure the stack was set properly because, embarrasing as the crash was during the demonstration, my group still got the highest mark in the class for that project (the only project in the history of computer sciences at that school to ever have gotten 100%).
The T1 subway cars which are roughly the equivlent of the R142s except they have had very few problems, so few I could count them on one hand, and all but one were minor have a computer system similar to the one found on the R142. The problem we had with the T1s was that a bug in the computer program would cause the train doors to open at infrequent random times. The bug appeared so infrequently that it was only discovered three and a half years after the T1s debuted in service. They were all pulled out of service over a weekend (fortunately that's when the bug was discovered) and had a software patch from Bombardier installed. Since then, those subway cars have been running problem free, computers and all.
-Robert King
Must be Linux then. Nah, I'm sure they're really some Motorola-based CPU running 68k assembler code - the only entity dumb enough to run NT is our own Navy ... even the MTA wouldn't be THAT dumb. :)
The MTA certainly wouldn't now that they have the Metrocard machines with NT (No Technology?) that seem to, at least by accounts I've read here, be somewhat crashprone.
I'd almost be willing to bet money that the little computers in the subway trains are designed around the 68030. The Triple Zero would be a little slow, and probably long out of production and the same with 68020. Hewlett Packard, at least until recently and I don't know if this has changed or not, has used the 68030 as the main processor in their laser printers which suggests that the 68030 is still made. The 68040 and 68060 didn't seem to take off as much as the 68000 and 68030 did in terms of computers and I don't know of any other devices that use them like the HP printers that have 68030s, so I suspect that the 040 and 060 are no longer made too.
You probably know just as well as I do how confusing Intel 80x86 assembler is compared to the Motorla 68000 family's, and for a subway car's computer system, which 80x86 would you choose? One also has to bear in mind that none of the old ones are in production anymore (as far as I know) so a 386 (my first choice for an Intel on a subway car as it's powerful enough yet inexpensive enough) wouldn't be available as are all the other older ones, and one certainly doesn't need a Celeron or a PIII for subway car terminals. It's not like they need the accelerated graphics capabilities of MMX on a PIII at 800mHz to render a 3D diagram of the train on the terminal's screen in real time to show the progress of each door as it closes...
-Robert King
True all around ... but then again, they're still using the Rockwell 6502 for the shuttle ... but I wouldn't pick *any* Intel for a mission critical thing ... they run too hot. I'd go with a 68030 though I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see some custom microcontroller. From what I've seen of the status screens in pictures of them here, my guess is that we have something VERY custom and not all that sophisticated from a standpoint of what's needed on the display. That was one of the reasons why if I had the time and I was in NYC anyway, I'd definitely show up for the IEEE thing just to find out.
I hope somebody goes, and tells the rest of us about it.
I like the 68030. A good processor...
To anyone who does go ... find out what CPU the 142's are using and score big bonus points here on Subtalk ... gane dinero ...
If I absolutely had to pick an Intel for that sort of thing, it would be the 8086. Honestly, it's my favourite of the 80x86 line because it doesn't have the silly 16/8 bit internal/external archetecture or any of thoes annoying modes like protected mode etc. that the later ones have. But then again, I'd prefer to stick with a Triple Zero or an 030 from the outset.
I thought Motorola was behind the 6502. Isn't that the processor that was used in the Commodore 64? The 6502 is a decent little processor, but it's little.
-Robert King
[I thought Motorola was behind the 6502]
Now that you point it out, I think so too, could be of course some cross licencing.
Arti
As far as I know the 6502 was ALWAYS a Rockwell original. They do hold the patent for that design ... the 6502 was an original "MIL-STD" design and when superceded, was released for civilian/aero use ...
If I recall correctly, Atari was the first (cerca 1979) to pair the 6502 with an Antic chip dedicated to graphics processing. This set it head and shoulders above the Apple II (but Apple had better marketing and management...)
Of course, previous to that there was a computer called the Intertec Superbrain which used two Zilog Z-80's - one for the CPU, one for the screen. They ran a word processor called Wordstar like no other machine could.
The Z80 has also done years past its original life in microcontroller duty and several offshoots of the Z80 continued on for years after Zilog ditched it. "Computers" don't normally need all that much power in industrial control situations, they just need speed and real time interrupts. The 6502 was the first one that enabled short palette color, certainly good enough to give you a blue background with red status areas in text - also was the first CPU to use a 3.58 clock which made it REAL easy to use an ordinary NTSC type TV set for display.
My old K car (Plymouth Reliant) had a 6800 chip (not 68k) and managed to do OK with something that old in it. Given the federal requirements for railroad use, you can rest assured that whatever's in the 142's isn't an "off the shelf" chip, but will definitely not be one of the newer versions simply because for railroad use, they want YEARS of reliable track record behind ANYTHING put into trains ... I remember what an uphill fight it was many years ago to get LED's "proven" for service when BART was being built. The original equipment went with bulbs because LED's hadn't made the cut yet.
The 6502 was "rad-hardened" for one and for most "intelligent controller" operations, it was all you really needed. And it could do color video too. But in its time, it was more than adequate.
[The 68040 and 68060 didn't seem to take off as much as the 68000 and 68030 did in terms of computers and I don't know of any other devices that use them ]
040 got it's day in mainstream as the last non-RISC proc powering the Apple Macintosh computers. You can still buy upgrade cards using 040ies :-)
Also long after that Chyron was using 040 and 060 for their video character generators.
Now we have Palm Pilots using a derivative of the architecture.
Arti
I'm also aware of numerous upgrade cards for the Amiga computers that carry an 040 or an 060 alone, or more recently with a PowerPC processor to run programs written for Amigas but require a PowerPC. Those are mainly advanced 3D graphics/animation programs.
Didn't the multimedia Macintosh (a pre PowerPC machine) have a 68060?
-Robert King
You mean Amiga is still viable? Wow!
I owned a 1040ST. Great computer (my Dave Grusin jazz CD features a piece with a 1040ST synthesizer. Designer Shiraz Shivji came up with a machine that was described as "mil-spec" in its quality, was a dream to program and was just better than anything else in its day. The "TT" was supposed to receive the 68030 but Atari Markeying was so incompetent they screwed every chance Atari had to make it in the computer market.
I owned the 800, the 800XL, the 1040ST - all great machines. I used Visicalc to help Home Savings run financial studies for customers, flew the first flight simulators on them, did medical school homework on them...
[Didn't the multimedia Macintosh (a pre PowerPC machine) have a 68060? ]
Nope, but it had a built in DSP, I think a TI one.
Arti
Ah yes, the venerable Chyron CP-1 and VP-2 with their "intermittent boards" ... would it genlock or wouldn't it? Only the take bar knew for sure. :)
I just checked Chyron's web site, Infinit family is still around (Max, Maxine,) so 68k is still in use!
Arti
Yipe! :)
I don't get it. Why if Toronto's T1s are so similar to our R142s, why are the T1s running with almost no problems and the R142s are plagued with technical problems. The cars came from the same company and have such similar technology. What's going on here? Someone at the MTA and/or Bombardier needs to be held responsible!
My guess is MTA has different requirements than Toronto (e.g. Bombardier couldn't just take a bunch of T-1's and repaint them in MTA livery). Beyond that I can only speculate.
That's exactly it. The requirements between the MTA/IRT division and the TTC are quite different.
Kawaski isn't doing much better with the R142As, so I wonder if it has more to do with the car design or the MTA's requirements than the builders.
-Robert King
MTA has long been known for exacting requirements - look at the history of bus purchases. Vendors have a hard time here (of course, having the A frames on the Flexible buses collapse and spill engines to the street was nothing to laugh at...)
Morrison-Knudsen did a nice job rebuilding the Budd Brightliners but ended up losing money on the deal.
When the TA has had unhappy times with rolling stock, it's always been their own fault. The TA has always done detailed specifications of precisely what they want in their R contracts, along with drawings and then put them out to a limited number of car builders willing to bid. Rockwell was never a car builder and yet they seemed to be the only ones who wanted to bid on those "cracked trucks" ... sometimes the engineers draw up a lemon, most of the time they don't, but the bidders have to bid on and build whatever's in the specifications.
Prior to the drawings and the bidding process, TA engineers will go out into the field and see what's out there so as to not design something that would have no responding bidders at all. But at the same time, they know what they want and to get the plum, you have to build it as drawn or you don't get the contract. And sometimes a vendor has to go where no vendor has gone before since it's a pretty big piece of chump change for their bottom line since if the TA wants something, they've seen it out there, know it can be done and expect YOU to adapt it to what you build. Some car companies responded to this by yanking the cord and jumping on the tracks and seeking the nearest staircase out of the business. :)
Bear in mind that the Kawaski 142s are being just as troublesome as the Bombardier 142s as well, and the problems with the Kawaski's can't be explained by Bombardier, so shouldn't something be done about Kawaski too?
The T1s are similar and as you mentioned do come from the same company and have very similar technology but there are several critical differences:
1) The T1 is a more conventional design. They are two car married pair units, and each car is 75 feet long as per the TTC specifications. From what I understand, the R142 is about 50 feet long, and a full R142 unit comprises of five cars rather than two so the equipment is probably divided up differently between the cars and certainly between more than one or two of the five cars.
2) The T1s are being built in Thunder Bay, inestead of somewhere in New York. The Thunder Bay plant have had experience building five different classes of 75 foot subway cars for the TTC over the period of time stretching from the mid 1960s til present. This long experience with the standard TTC car concept does strongly count in their favour in terms of producing a reliable product.
I sould mention that the Thunder Bay plant's record isn't spotless: the H5s had a long technology teething problem time because they were the first cars that had thyristor control and air conditioning but they are now very reliable cars, and that the H6s that were made there in the mid 1980s are still basketcases (H5s were built when it was owned by Hawker Siddeley, H6s built when it was owned by UTDC).
3) The T1s don't have extra features like automatic station announcements or strip maps or electronic destination signs or things of that nature which the R142s do which, when all is said and done, the added equipment can become a maintainance and reliability concern that would not exist if it was left out. The T1s in this respect are also more conventional than the R142s. Most of those systems probably aren't made by Bombardier, but by another supplier.
-Robert King
Your points are well-taken. The R-142 is actually 51' and change in length.
As to component suppliers, Luminator (a co based in Texas) made the electronic window signs for the refurbished R-46's; perhaps they are also the R-142 subcontractor. I think they also make bus signs.
Thank you for your courtesy in posting that. It should be interesting.
Nose to nose faceoff! First photo!
Heh. Where's the gasoline truck?
LOL..THANKS PAUL!
Peace,
ANDEE
Good one, Paul! The Battle of the BMTs! (Or more appropriately, 'Battle of the BRTs')
No field shunting on those babies!
:-)
BMTman
Hold on, we are not that old, which one is Fred and which one is Me?
B.F.& C.I. RY. Co. = Brooklyn, Flatbush & Coney Island Railway = Brighton Line. The other says "Sea Beach" on the cab, but it's kinda hard to read.
which is which?
The 4-4-0 on the left is a Brighton locomotive. The 2-4-0 on the right is a Sea Beach locomotive.
Great I have more power then that Arcadia Republican
I hope you're reading this Paul. There goes Brighton Beach Bob again bringing politics into our website. Do you get it now? My friend Bob is the political agitator of the two. I only respond in reaction to his liberal tirades.
Mommy! Mommy! Fred said the "L" word again! And there's no trains running on THAT "L" ... bustini! bustini! :)
I didn't know what I was starting. Next we'll be comparing the size of the tenders and cowcatchers.... (sigh)
I think we've got a qualifier for the motorman's eyeball test in that photo ...
How come nobody asked about our food fight 3 weeks ago in LA? I ate more
He did eat a little more than I did but I insisted on paying since he was my guest. But don't get the impression that I ate like a bird either. I had a second helping of fettucine as I recall, so it can be safely said that we both had a pleasant repast. Of course, when I visit #1 Brighton Express Bob, he will treat me and I will still having that second helping of fettucine.
Wait a minute. I brought it up. Something about John Belushi poking his nose throught the door and yelling, "FOOD FI-III-IGHT!!!"
My thoughts exactly buddy. Who the hell to those guys think we are anyway? Neanderthals? Good God, those are ancient trains. Are they trying to tell us something? Well I guess there is some consolation that our friendly barbs have ingnited a cottage industry of immmitators. Immitated but never duplicated, right Bob? Anyway, let them enjoy a laugh on us. We're all supposed to be in the same boat anyway. Enjoy yourself guys.
Bust 'em if ya got 'em, soldier ... :)
Ummm...
Those are gen-YOU-wine Brighton and Sea Beach locos. Don't you want to stand by your namesakes? ;-)
Gentlemen, fire up your boilers...
They should stage a Triplex-pulling contest.:-)
As my 20 month old God Son in Hawaii says when he plays with the toy train I gave him. Choo Choo
Hopefully, my 2 1/2-year old godson will be into trains as well. Those Brio wooden trains at toy stores grab his attention.
Question: Does the SEPTA R1 Airport Line have cab signals and what is the max. speed the trains reach?
If nobody knows, the next time one of you are riding it could you observe the engineer through the Railfan Portal.
The line is equipped to operate with cab signals but does have wayside indications also. I think the cab signals are needed due to the strange wrong-rail operation utilized (which may end due to the new side platforms at the Airport terminal stations).
I have been told that the speed limit is 79 mph along the straightaway from 60th St Junction to 90th St Junction. This is possible since there are no grade crossings in this stretch, although patrons using Eastwick Station may have to cross the tracks at grade depending on which track is being used by which train. Keep in mind that this stretch is also used by freight trains.
Came across an ad to reserve the above item. Its two cars (Mets/Yankiees) on a track mounted on a wooden base with pictures of the stadiums and the logos in the background.
The number 7 car is totally wrong. # is 2302 not 9307+++++. Also they have mainline doors, not R33/36 WF doors. The number plate behind the cab is beneath the MTA logo, next to the door not mounted up high behind the cab. The rear one is, so you have one high, one low.
The Yankee car is 2300 with a red stripe underneath. The font doesn't appear correct.
They don't say what scale the item is--only that its an artist's rendering. They would like your reservation so that they can charge you $108 (in 3 payments) when the item finally comes out in July.
While I'm partially to buses, as an old Sunnyside boy I would've considered buying this if it was a little more accurate and lower priced.
Has anyone else seen this ad ?? It might show up in the Color section of your Sunday paper shortly.
Until my next visit on Sub-Talk
Hart Bus
PS--I am not a dealer, manufacturer or in any way connected with the Danbury Mint or any competitor.
I have an ad for that figure from 10/26/00. The "artist's rendition" is probably closer to the final product in the new one; the October version is more of a crude sketch. It shows an R-62/62A for the Yankees and an R-33/36WF for the Mets; both cars are #2000. The sketches look good down to the circuit breakers, with the main exception being the rollsigns. The R-62's is a single line in the "opening" part of the window only, while the R-33/36 only has the route portion, with windows where the terminals should be. The price is the same.
If the Danbury Mint's automotive models are any indication, I'd say this will be a nice piece, and the artist needs some work on his conceptions. Still a little too pricey for me, though :).
I order the Danbury Mint-Subway Series Cars last Oct, 2000 & i should get it by end of this month. It cost only $99 plus $9 shipping handling totol $108 together & i already put down $36 advance depoit. Any way im looking forward to receive my Mint Subway Series Cars & put it on my display in the living room.
Peace
David Justiniano
Soon to be NYCT-MTA Traffic Checker
Dave, I don't dispute what you posted. I hope it comes out looking good. Please put up a post when you receive the piece. Maybe more of us will then order it.
I also hope that if they are billing it now it is almost ready for shipping. The postcard size ad that I'm looking at says under the reservation information in bold print " Available in July ". Perhaps this is a solicitation for a second casting.
My sister ordered it for me in December; I got a postcard in February to expect it in May.
-Hank
Saw these 2 Redbirds on #7 today. STILL have the logos for the subway World seres back a few mouths ago. I was thinking that MTA was going to remove it.BUT it did not get remove yet. I guess MTA did not remove those Logos on those 2 Cars yet because MTA was thinking that there is going to be anouther Subway seres. Well I hope not.
#7 R-36 #9400
All 10 Subway Series R-36WFs and one R-33WF are still out there; they've been split up since the summer, though. I've seen all 11 in a single trip from Grand Central to Main St!
Correction there are 11 WS cars 9356 9357 9360 9361 9394 9395 9412 9413 9327 9712 9713 and 9314 was supposed to get the stickers it never turned out. only 2 cars out of the 11 have the "blue ends" 9394 and 9713.
The original order had 9394 at the Flushing end, followed by 9395, and 9327. 9713 was at the Manhattan end, followed by 9712.
The order was as follows:
Manhattan-9713 9712 9361 9360 9413 9412 9356 9357 9327 9395 9394-Flushing.
It's been a while since thos cars were on the same train. I took a picture once where there were six of them in a row.
I don't have a car number yet but I'm told that one redbird will be donated to the Smithsonian..................
Where would they keep it ? I can't imagine them evicting the SR Steamer. I believe the B&O museum is Baltimore is cooperative with the Smithsonian on such matters.
Hopefully it will be the one with the most body-rot so that generations of Americans can see what 'moved the millions' from the 1950s to the 90's as it looked when it was finally retired from service.
BMTman
It would be awe-inspiring to many who never saw how rotted out some of those cabs got ... back in the SEVENTIES, I rode some of the cabs with buddies of mine in the rustbirds and the water would just cascade down the front wall where the windows had been eaten away. Thirty years later, I'm amazed any of them still survive. Some were being yanked from service way back when for serious rot where the only thing keeping the body on the chassis was all those layers of paint. :)
Kev, I think I'll suggest to the Smithsonian Institute that your posting be turned into a bronze plaque that will adorn the body of the 'rustbird' to be displayed in our nation's capitol.
BMTman
Nowadays, it seems the only thing holding some of those Redbirds together is Bondo.:-) Or duct tape.
In all sincerity, given how water intrusion was severe 30 years ago, I sit in amazement that they're still running and still attached to their trucks ... I'm sure Train Dude can fill us in, but I'd be willing to bet that those cars have seen a SHEETLOAD of spot welding just to keep them on the road ...
Whoops ... happy fingers. Posted before I was finished ... as to what sits in museums, well ... have a look at what Branford did in trying to restore the cars they have to as close as factory new as is possible. I would expect the Smithsonian to make them look like they were still sitting on the rack at the ACF plant. As though they had never carried a passenger at all.
Perhaps we could get some funds together and make a "TA horror theme park" where we could place R9's on end as a sorta "trainhenge", a redbird horror show ride where cars are sent down a Cyclone-like track and the trucks and frame stay on the track while the strapped in passengers are sent down a water chute ride ...
But as to the museum, I'm sure they'd put them back to that original funky khaki-like color they were delivered in originally with several truckloads of BONDO under it. By the time they're done, no magnet would stick to it anywhere. :)
LOL!
And I suppose the Redbird will reside in the Transportation Building at the Smithsonian so it'll share the same building that holds an exhibit for the Concorde and the Apollo LEM. Neat!
BMTman
By chance, would the Smithsonian have a PCC in that building as well? If they don't, they should...
-Robert King
Why? Are you trying to unload one? Heh.
My uncle, may he rest in peace, was on the LEM design team (life support systems). He worked at the Grumman plant on LI in 1968-69.
... and one last bit ... that those things are still plying the rails at all is testimony to amazing body maintenance ... what I first noticed back in the 70's as the bodies started peeling on those cars was that they seemed to be some kind of wierd LAMINATE of metal - looked like 6 to 9 sheets of thinner metal all schmushed together. You could really see it in the cabs and in the door panels (the part that was opened to get at the mechanisms) as they rotted. And some of the cabes I saw were just amazing. Daylight by your toes, sharp edges by the windshield gaskets and horribly stained paint where the water was streaming down in the rain. I'm surprised the ta didn't provide buckets for the motormen for rainy days. Just amazing.
[I'm surprised the ta didn't provide buckets for the motormen for rainy days. Just amazing.]
That's why there was no need to mop of the floors of the cars in those days....;-)
Actually, that business about the layers of steel might have infact been a way to reinforce the overall body strength.
BMTman
Heh. Always got a kick out of the congoleum 12x12 tiles on the floor. Reminded me of many a cheesy apartment kitchen. But yeah, I can see where it would be useful for some degree of structural integrity when they were new. I forget the exact name of the construction, it was something new that they did for those and didn't repeat elsewhere. I think it was called "LAHT" or something like that. But man, once the water got "in between the sheets" it got gnarly fast.
And I have this sinking feeling that the Smithsonian would have to dangle it from the ceiling ... though shooting a few into space wouldn't be such a bad idea if they can't sleep with the fishes ... a whole lot scarier than MIR. :)
Did the R27/R-30 series of cars share this water infiltration problem?
--Mark
I would imagine any of the LAHT cars did ... some of them had it to a mighty impressive level too. I remember an incident back in 1971 where a motorman on (I think) the #4 line had his windshield come in and cut him as the mount for the window let go from rot out ... and as I've said before, you could see the rust stains in a lot of cabs ...
All they would need to top it off is a tape loop playing "Rusty the Redbird".:-)
The Redbirds, in my opinion, have performed yeoman service for the TA. Aside from the R1-9s, the cars of my childhood, they are my favorite class of cars. How many other motor vehicles from the Eisenhower era are still on the road, day in and day out, winter and summer? They were simple cars, but solid and reliable as an anvil. I go out of my way to ride the 'Birds whenever I can, even passing up R62's. The beauty is in the simplicity.
Credit, of course, goes to the hardworking employees of NYCT, who have done a great job keeping the 'Birds going. Like the R1-9's, I'll be sorry to see them go.
Where it stands a good chance of being sent to the Smithsonian's "attic", where the public never gets to see it. The trailer to the Gay Nineties train, 1512 went there. The motor got restored and keeps the beautiful Southern Pacific company. Of course, it says nothing of what a streetcar is, just like the locomotive says nothing of what a steam locomotive really is.
I may be in Valley Forge later this month, is there a SEPTA BUS/Train from Valley Forge to Downtown Philly. Please let me know and the line number Thank you
I don't think so but there might be a regional rail stop
There is the 125, that goes straight to Philly via King of Prussia and the Schulykill Expressway.
Bus, train or what?
It is a bus
There is the 125 bus, that goes straight to Philly via King of Prussia and the Schulykill Expressway.
thank you,
The Routes 125 runs from Valley Forge right to SEPTA HQ at 13th and Market in the heart of Center City. It takes the Schuylkill Expwy and is usually pretty crowded. There are no convenient rail connections into Center City.
Of course, it depends where in Valley Forge you will be. The 'town' of Valley Forge is really a part of a larger township. The Valley Forge Conference Center is actually on the east edge of the 'town', not far from Valley Forge Park. The Sheraton at the Conference Center is a stop on 125 which, as mentioned, is a straight shot into Center City. The 99 bus which passes there occasionally also crosses the Norristown High Speed Line (100) at King Manor Station, and this line is a very interesting rail line which goes to 69th St, where connections can be made to the Market St El to Center City. The 99 can also be taken to Norristown Transit Center where either 100 or regional rail R6 can be picked up (R6 goes directly to Center City). You could make an interesting trip of different routes in different directions if you wanted a quick sampler of rail transit in Phila, or you could take your chances on 125 (which can and often does get stuck in Schuylkill Expy traffic).
I will be at the RADDISON HOTEL. I will have a car. I would like to take rail even if it is only to 69th where I can change to the Market St Line. What do you suggest to where I can drive and park the car. It will be on the weekend. Bob
I forgot to mention that you could also take 125 to Gulph Mills and transfer to 100 there to go to 69th St. Another option!
The 5 is currently the fastest subway line in the A Divsion. However, they call it the Train from hell. I do not understand this, because it is the only train I can think of that is express in 3 boroughs! The M is the cleanest. I figure the M is the cleanest, because the news people said so. But you know why the M is the cleanest? NO ONE RIDES THE DAMN TRAIN! The Q is the fastest B Divsion line! Best Shuttle is Franklin for the B Division and 42nd for the A division!
Layta
E to JAMAICA CENTER
R32 3885
Yeah, if the (M) is the cleanest, it's mainly because it's not infested with passengers! I like it though. :-)
My own favorite is the good old Queensboro IRT, the highly distinctive (7) line. I love the views of Shea Stadium, the Worlds fairgrounds, the very generous closeup of Midtown Manhattan, including the highly underrated Queensboro Bridge, Forrest Hills in the distance. And the neighborhoods it goes through are each so distinctive, both in the buildings and the people. it's like a tour of the New York City behind the glitz of Manhattan. it has a unique elevated section along Queens Blvd, with uniquely decorated elevated stations. And even the underground stations (apart from Grand Central Airplane Hangar) are nice, especially the beautifully restored Main St. The redbirds are distictive and good-looking, though too obviously at the end of their useful lives. I'm also looking forward to seeing some R62As. :-)
My least favorite? I'm sick of the (F), but after all it is my daily grind. There's not much to distinguish the Queens or Manhattan section of it, but I do like the 63rd St stations it will soon traverse. I guess the (C) is probably the worst thing overall.
Of course, these are purely subjective observations.
:-) Andrew
Defining good and bad lines can be hard. Reliability wise, I'd rate all 4 Eastern Division lines over anything else, and I'd rate the Broadway N/R at the bottom in this category.
Where is your data on the 5 and Q being the fastest. How are you measuring it? Distance traveled and time? Speed on a portion of track? Your slobering face plastered on the rail-fan window??
For the A Division, the worst lines are the 2 and the 5, hands down. They have the rustiest and crappiest of the Redbirds. They both have too many stops in the Bronx and the 2 is slow as hell. There always seems to be some kind of G.O. Every time I ride the 2 or the 5, the trains always seem to run slowly on the express tracks. Many times, I've seen a 1 or 6 local train passing my express train. You think that wouldn't happen, but it can and it does. And of course, the Bombardier R142s are taking forever to go into service (WHY?). And trains on both lines are jammed even during weekends. Riding either line is not a nice experience.
The 2/5 in the Bronx is pretty slow but not the Manhattan parts.
My least favorite line is the F. After all, how slow can it go?
How come the TA can afford clerks at the seldom-used Bowery station on weekends, but not on the other down Nassau Street ? Seems to me, they could make a trade-off.
Well the clerks should stay at Bowery, it should get much busier as of July 1st.
I don't think any Grand/Chrystie Street refugees are going to go down to that cesspool.
Do you seriously think that commuters would stay away from a convenient station because they don't like it?
These stations are not closed on weekends merely to save money on token booths. They are closed so the Broad St. tower can be closed, which is impossible if the J were to operate here. I believe the Chambers St. interlocking, which the J uses to turn around on weekends, is controlled from Essex St, a tower which has to be manned 24/7 anyway. However, I'm not 100% sure.
Couldn't the J be extended to Fulton (or even Broad), wrong-railing in one direction, without opening another tower? (I'd prefer the southbound track be used since it has an easier transfer to the 2/3. 4/5 riders can transfer at Chambers.)
Can the triplet set run without the middle car ? If so, maybe the 2 servicable sets should be assigned to the Franklin Shuttle, and allow 4 R68's to return to the mainline pool.
That would make them just like the R-11, which because of their braking problems were assigned to the shuttle and nowhere else on the B division. R-11, R-110. How about that!
The story I heard about the R-11s is that they weren't run in solid trains because of their braking problems. Based on the photos of them that I've seen (3-car solid consist on the Franklin Ave. shuttle and who-knows-how-many cars on that B (3) train in October of 1968), that theory doesn't seem to be true.
From what I heard from others at the time they were running on the shuttle, they were OK on level ground. You just didn't want to do the bridge with them.
Sounds like this might be a good idea....especially with all the changes happening this summer with the V & W being added due to the 63rd street connector. In addition, if this does happen, I would give G riders the first priority to the cars...a 4-car train in rush hour just doesn't do it. -Nick
That would probably be a good idea for them.
Wayne
Big deal, 4 R68's. FOUR!!!! They are in married pairs as well. Just keep running the R-110's as a MAINLINE unit, it's much more worthwhile.
Four R-68s is one whole G train!
They would have to replace the roll sign units on the current shuttle cars. They were taken out, with sign boards put in their place. From the outside you can hardly tell.
>>Four R-68s is one whole G train!<<
9 R-110's is one A train!
6 R-110's is one C train!
The point is why throw away those middle cars just to put 4 R-68's back in the pool? Seems silly.
Use them on the JAAAAAAAAYMACIA "J" train. They are as big as the standards that once plied that route. Schedule it for prime time rush service.
avid
Maybe, but they might still have clearance problems due to their truck placement. The trucks on the BMT standards were set back from the car ends quite a bit, more so than on subsequent R units.
I saw car number 5302 (formerly 5612), one of the first Comet IIs to be sent for a major GOH back in April '99, parked outside the MMC and coupled to a Comet IV cab. The car looks identical on the outside to a Comet IV, complete with digital signs and the Comet IV paint scheme. The only way I could possibly tell them apart is the lack of center doors and the positioning of the car number. I'm now wondering where the other 8 cars sent to AAI are (perhaps in service)? One can see it by riding a train between Hoboken and Newark Penn ($1 one way, 1.50 RTX) or Newark Broad St (1.95 OW, $3 RTX). Look out the left (heading west) or right (heading east) window around the maintenance shops and you will see it. Take the 4:28 PM from Newark to Hoboken and it will go slow in that area, since it makes several stops in the vicinity for employees.
It will be interesting how and where they place them into service. GOH Comet-2's will have disk brakes and therefore will not run in consists with other Comet-2's nor Comet-1's.' Also, the cab cars will be stripped to trailers. Therefore, the only thing else they can run with are Comet-3,4,5, the latter doesn't exist yet, and the former 2 don't run on the RVL.
The comet I cars will be retired after all the Comet II cars are returned from GOH. AT this time NJT is mixing Comet III and COmet IV cars in the same train.
I've noticed also that their getting a bit sloppy in car assigning. There are Comet II cabs with comet I low door trailers (somewhat rare), and my favorite was a Shoreliner (5174 - Harriman) with two Comet I high-door cars running on the Montclair Branch! They generally try to confine the MNRR stuff to the Main and Bergen lines, sometimes the Pascack.
The Comet IV and III mixing gets annoying at times. A Comet IV train will often have a III cab, so no automated announcements or interior digital signs. Or, there'll be a Comet III train with a Comet IV trailer or a mixture, leaving some cars with the announcements and others silent. If the conductors stay in one of the Comet IV cars they will sometimes forget to make announcements and the Comet III cars are in silence.
Today the train was arranged like this:
Comet IV Cab - II GOH - III - GP-40. Digital signs on the Comet IV and II GOH flashed "Philadelphia | Local."
Perhaps compatibility testing?
New York Times
April 4, 2001
Commercial Real Estate: Work to Start Soon on Mall at Atlantic Terminal
By SANA SIWOLOP
When the overhaul of Brooklyn's long-dreary Atlantic Terminal is completed in 2004, the crowded transportation hub is to have a spiffy look, with wider passageways, new stairs, eight elevators and a canopied entrance to shelter arriving and departing travelers.
Above the refurbished station area, the terminal will also have something completely new: a large shopping center housing about 30 retailers and restaurants.
The developer, Bruce Ratner, who heads the Forest City Ratner Companies of Brooklyn, said his company expected to break ground for the 372,000-square-foot center by June 1, with the goal of opening it in summer 2003.
Mr. Ratner said the center would have three full floors, and a partial fourth floor. Shoppers will be able to enter the mall through three ground- level entrances: one at Flatbush Avenue; one at the entrance area for the terminal's Long Island Rail Road station; and one off a 23,000-square- foot plaza that will be built between the new mall and Atlantic Center, the 393,000-square-foot retail complex at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues that Mr. Ratner's company finished in 1996.
Compared with the Atlantic Center, the Atlantic Terminal layout will have a mall-like feeling, with more open space and generally smaller retailers, Mr. Ratner said. "Atlantic Center has more big-box tenants stacked on top of each other, as well as more destination shopping," he said, adding that he expects the two properties to complement each other.
More than 80 percent of the space at Atlantic Terminal has been leased, Mr. Ratner said. The 15 retailers that will have stores in Atlantic Terminal include Gap, Target, Victoria's Secret and the Children's Place. Target alone, Mr. Ratner said, has leased 192,000 square feet of the space on the building's second, third and fourth floors; the retailer's main entrance will be on the second floor.
Richard Pesin, the director of retail development at Forest City Ratner, said the basement at Atlantic Terminal — the same level as the subway platforms — still has 45,000 square feet available, with space ranging from 1,200 to 8,500 square feet. He added that while rents for larger spaces vary considerably, rents for smaller spaces, generally between 1,000 and 3,000 square feet, run about $80 a square foot a year in the terminal.
David Rosenberg, a managing director at Robert K. Futterman & Associates, a real estate service company that specializes in retail spaces, said Forest City Ratner had already created a strong tenant lineup at Atlantic Terminal. He expects the Target store especially to be a magnet for other businesses and shoppers.
"I like the fact that Target won't have their own external entrance at this center," he said. "Target will pull commuters up from the station. It's a natural traffic flow."
Built in 1908, the terminal now serves roughly 50,000 passengers a day and encompasses the Atlantic Avenue and Pacific Street subway stops, as well as an L.I.R.R. terminus. The terminal serves 10 subway lines, and is the second-busiest station for the railroad in New York City after Pennsylvania Station, said Brian Dolan, an L.I.R.R. spokesman.
Time has not been kind to Atlantic Terminal, once known as Times Plaza because of its proximity to The Brooklyn Daily Times, which was published nearby.
Until about 15 years ago, the land above the terminal was home to meatpacking warehouses, as well as a small station building. Those buildings were demolished in the mid- and late 1980's to make way for retail development, although the plans were canceled during the recession of the early 1990's. Today, the lot above the station is vacant except for an old control house that served as a subway entrance more than 30 years ago. Renovation of the station itself started last spring.
For years, commuters have complained about the lack of amenities at the terminal, as well as confusing, dark and crowded conditions. Transit officials say that when the rebuilding of the terminal is completed, at a cost of about $106 million, many of those problems will be rectified, through measures like rebuilding the old control house to serve as a giant skylight for the station below.
Transit authorities also have high hopes for the new retail center. "It's our concern," said Tom Kelly, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, "that this be a major transportation hub, and that both the retail center and the hub be symbiotic."
As the expression goes, I'll believe it when I see it.
About a year ago, someone connected with the Flatbush terminal redevelopment asked me for a picture of the old station. He said they were hoping to build the new structure to look similar to the old one. I hope that is still in their plans.
Too bad the city fathers didn't let Peter O'Malley build his new Ebbets Field there. Would have been an ideal locale transportation wise like MSG
Too bad the city fathers didn't let Peter O'Malley build his new Ebbets Field there. Would have been an ideal locale transportation wise like MSG
I recall reading that the city did offer the site to O'Malley, but he decided that Los Angeles was a better place for the team and declined the offer.
You're right, though, the site is excellent in terms of transit access.
What I read (Howard Cosell's autobiography) was that Walter O'Malley did want the stadium there. At the time, the LIRR was privately owned and who had a big chunk of stock?......Walter O'Malley. The city offered to build him what is in effect today Shea Stadium. He turned them down.
It should also be mentioned that he had already bought (at the time) relatively inexpensive land in the LA area called Chavez Ravine. Once LA consented to build Dodger Stadium on that land, the deal was done.
In retrospect, despite the conflict of interest, the city should have acceded to O'Malley's request. It probably would have saved Downtown Brooklyn through the 60's and 70's, not to mention the source of pride to Brooklynites in having a major sport franchise with the Brooklyn name. (I haven't lived in NY since 1972, so I don't know what's Downtown now. My grandmother went through it after the 1977 blackout and said it looked like it had been hit with a pogrom!!!)
IIRC Robert Moses had a lot to do with the new Dodger ballpark not being built at Atlantic and Flatbush.
I can't say for sure, but he probably had a lot to do with the Shea offering. I believe it was on public land at the World's Fair site (1939 and 1964) near a confluence of planned or existing highways. That seems to fit the Moses style.
According to Moses's book PUBLIC WORKS, in June 1953 O'Malley wanted to shoehorn a plan for a new stadium into the Title I rebuilding of Fort Greene but that Moses rejected it because adding such a building would have contravened federal Title I guidelines and jeopardized the entire plan.
Like much in PUBLIC WORKS, this does not have the conspicuous ring of truth. Moses himself admits that the project was analogous to the Coliseum, being built with Title I funds at Columbus Circle.
According to THE POWER BROKER, Moses also blocked something called the City Sports Authority, which would have been charged with keeping both the Dodgers and the Giants in town.
I was in the middle of looking through the Archives when all of a sudden they seemed to stop working. Is it just me or is someone else having the same problems?
Dave said something about the Archives being oos due to another Northpoint DSL going-bye-bye.
Yup. The line went down today around 12. When everything gets straigtened out they'll be back.
A student groupe is showing The Warriors this Friday and I heard there are some goode subway sceens in it. Do you guys recomend that I see it?
God damn my MAN!
This is one of the worst cult classic films ever made. That's what makes it so cool to watch. The vintage subway sceens from 1979 is memorable. If you want a NYC documentary on how far the Big Apple has come, check this movie out especially at the end when they come back to Coney, you see blight of the urban landscape, how dirty it was and realise just how well the city is doing today.
Yes you should see it! let me know if you liked it...
Marty
*clink click clink* Waaaarrrrriiiioooorrrssssss Come out and PllaaaaaaAAAAAaayyyy :)
That's a great movie. It practically lives in the subway for half the movie.
It may be a lousey film, but it's a great one anyway.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good one, You're right I forgot about WWWWarrrriors coooooome out and pllllllllaaaaaaaaayy. God that was bad!!
I mostly love this movie for the urban sights, sounds, subway, and the graff all over the system. Man this city has come a loooooooooong way.
yesssssir Mayor, u da man!
i thought you disliked guliani marty?, This movie is like Wild Style, Wild Style is the greatest movie ever made, but there is hardly a plot, its just a bunch of shit that happened one day in the South Bronx tied to graffiti artists, and Rappers but still, greates movie ever made, Great Pieces By Caine 1, Dondi(RIP), Tracy168, "Lee"Quinones (stars in movie), great real rap by Fantastic Freaks, Cold Crush Bros,Busy Bee, Double Trouble, Grandmaster Flash, not to mention south bronx in the early 80s, the way its meant to be
Phil, why don't you come down and watch it with me? It starts at 7PM Friday in Shanklin 107. The cost is $2. Send me an e-mail and I'll either call or reply w/ directions. I'd love to meat you and argue in person. I could show you all the cool SPS stuff.
I would but:
a) My bike is still in NY - it's comming up this weekend.
b) I have my heat transfer lab durring then. And the professor is, well, very educational ;) Not to mention i missed last week due to my body deciding that my mouth was a bidirectional port for food.
Anyway, thursday night 8 - midnight or so, I'm floating around campus, then midnight to 2:30, I'm at my friend's place, then 3 - 6, I'm on WWUH (93.1 FM) with my friend (his show). I usually get the 6:33am Friday morning slAmtrak home to NY.
And when my bike's with me, who knows WHERE I'll be >:)
They god some good subway footage, I like the part when they hide against the columns of the elevated.
Yeah thats right with those skin heads on the bus. It wasn't only the system that was hit with graffiti in those days, that bus they were riding was tagged all over.
Yea writing on busses was cool too, and sanitation trucks, some real good shit came out on sanitation trucks, and assorted delivery vans, delivery wans still get heavily hit today.
IIRC, when The Warriors came out its posters were banned from the subway (note: this was very pre-Giuliani). The posters (and the movie, according to some) were considered too much a play on the culture of violence that was very much a part of the city then.
Likewise, West Side Story (which follows the story line of Romeo and Juliet very closely) was considered by some to be a soft treatment of gang violence. These may also seem very quaint or foolish now but, especially in the case of Warriors, you need to put your mind back to New York in 1979 (if you were around then) and it doesn't seem quite as silly.
Warriors was also alleged to have encouraged in attitude in some of its audiences which led to small scale violent incidents.
On a different level, also like West Side Story, I have heard that Warriors is directly based on old literature, in this case an ancient Greek play or legend in which one warring faction has to be cross the territor of another hostile faction to reach home, with the sea (the Atlantic Ocean at Coney Island here) being a mystical binding influence.
With all that good stuff in mind, I'd really like to hear your take on the movie.
The warriors is loosely based on Xenophon's "Anabasis."
Not a biggie like the Odyssey by Homer but, hey, what do you want for two bucks.
You know, Homer: Bart and Lisa's dad.
Was the Warriorsthe first movie that Mercedes Ruehl (the undercover cop on the park bench) ever appeared in?
She also had a part in the movie Subway Stories!
Yes.
On a different level, also like West Side Story, I have heard that Warriors is directly based on old literature, in this case an
ancient Greek play or legend in which one warring faction has to be cross the territor of another hostile faction to reach home, with the sea (the Atlantic Ocean at Coney Island here) being a mystical binding influence.
Specifically, according to the IMDB, on Xenophon's "Anabasis." I assume Xenophon was the source of the word "xenophobic."
It's been many years since I saw the Warriors, but I do remember many scenes quite clearly (alas, not the subway scenes). It's definitely in the category of movies that are so campy that they're fun to watch, a la Plan 9 from Outer Space or Showgirls.
If you like R-27/30s, then The Warriors is for you. Those cars are used almost exclusively in the subway scenes, even though the IRT is implied for most of the return trip. Apparently the producers paid no attention to train markings, as they vary considerably. At one point, a "QB-Local via Bridge" interior route sign is visible.
A few other pointers: 96th St. is really Hoyt-Schermerhorn in disguise, and the "To 14th St. Subway" sign was on a station pillar at the Union Square station on the BMT Broadway line. I remember those signs very well. You can also momentarily see an R-12/14 heading up a 4 train at the IRT Union Square station.
Another scene I believe took place on the tracks just outside Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts. Station. The scene is when one of the gang members and the girl was walking along the tracks and she tried to seduce him. During this scene a JFK Express train (3 car R-46) passed by them.
Wayne
Its always been a bit of a cult film over here in the UK (and freely available on video - on TV as recently as last Winter)A great film I think - with great music !.
At one point , after their confrontation with a street gang (The Orphans) - they rush onto a train at an unmarked station on the el which has "BMT Divsion" above the station house.Does anyone know which location this is.?
I particularly like the opening shots of Coney Island - though what appears to be the Fulton St line is shown (head on views)- anyone know if I am correct sitting here in suburban Britain ??
Many thanks.
Yes as far as I know it is the Fulton line. As for the BMT station I think it is somewhere ion the J. It is a good film. I have it on video. The write up on this site gives good information.
Simon
Swindon UK
The exterior of "96th Street" is actually the 72nd-B'way IRT station, "north of Verdi Square" as it is described elsewhere on NYC Subway Resources.
Now, let's trace the Warriors' progress from Van Cortlandt Park to "good ol' Cee Eye":
Big gang summit meeting in VCP. Gang leader Cyrus murdered; Warriors' leader Cleon attacked by Cyrus' gang (fate unknown); police arrive, all hell breaks loose, remaining eight Warriors escape into nearby boneyard (Woodlawn Cemetary?). Rembrandt, the spray-painter, spots elevated train, presumably the White Plains Road IRT.
To the tune of "Nowhere to Run" (NOT Martha & the Vandellas' version), the gang is seen running thru the streets of the Bronx, ducking and hiding. Finally, they're under the el at a station, waiting for a train to come in. If they stand on the platform they could get "japped" (gang parlance for ambushed) by the local thugs. You see, our "heroes" have been blamed for Cyrus' murder (but don't yet know it), and now they may have to rumble all the way home.
Soon a train comes in, just as the neighborhood bullies drive by in a school bus. The Warriors run up the stairs, jump the 'stiles, and onto the train - pursued by no one! (I think it's here where we see the "QB VIA BRIDGE" sign.)
The boys think they're home-free, but their train is soon held up by a building fire next to the el. The Warriors walk south through the area to the next station, and are confronted by the Orphans, a two-bit Puerto Rican gang. The two groups "parley." (In Sol Yurick's book, mention is made here of the "Intervale Avenue Lesbos," which is why I believe the first part of the journey is on the 2/5 line.) Negotiations are derailed by the Orphans' moll, Mercy, who is willfully abducted by the Warriors in the ensuing altercation. Soon, they're back on the IRT.
Next is the big set piece at "96 St." The gang's local train is waiting for an express connection. A TA "transit bull" (cop) spots the Warriors and they book, police in tow. The gang splits up: three leave the station; another trio manage to get a southbound train; Swan (the new leader) and Mercy run off; and the last one wrestles with a cop, who throws him onto the track as a train is coming in! (This scene is described pretty transit-accurately in Yurick's book.)
Now we're in mid-movie, which is fairly light on subway content: mainly the tunnel argument/kiss with Swan and Mercy("96 St" again). Meanwhile, one faction has the famous rumble with the pinstripe-clad, face-painted Baseball Furies, followed by one of them getting arrested by an undercover female cop. The other three make it to Union Square, the decided-upon rendezvous point for some stupid reason. There they are met by a female gang, the Lizzies. They all go to the Lizzies' clubhouse, where the girls try to exact revenge for Cyrus' death. This is the first time any of them has heard about the frame-up. They escape back to Union Square, where they hook up off-camera with two of the others.
I'll continue this in a separate post.
The "QB-Local via Bridge" sign is visible in the sequence with the two prom couples, by which time the train is underground. IIRC one of the side signs says "Ninth Ave." where they jump the turnstiles and scramble aboard the train. They are being pursued, but the doors close just in the nick of time (you can also see one of the Warriors pulling a door leaf out of the pocket as the doors close).
Hey now, my Man!! you sure have researched this one. It's a pretty accurate synopsis of it for someone who might not have seen the movie. I have it at home and from time to time I take it out and get a good chuckle out of it.
Great soundtrack to go along with it including the closing scene where they are walking away on the beach, credits rolling, that is the original version of "IN THE CITY", by Mr. "Can I do another line with you" himself, Joe Walsh. He wrote it and that's the one they used . We are used to the Eagles version recorded later. There are two different versions. Check it out.
One of my favorite scenes, is when they arrive in Coney in the morning, you see the bleak urban Coney landscape and someone is quoated as saying " THIS IS WHAT WE FOUGHT ALL NIGHT TO GET BACK TO!!!" Oh great line! Today a line like that would never fly because of political correctness. Some tourism or chamber of commerce groupe would boycot the film saying it is depicting them in a bad light... blah blah blah.
How far this system has come in the graffiti battle. This is what NYC looked like 20 years ago.
Waaaaariors, come out and plaaaaaaaay!
Actually, I have seen the movie dozens of times, and have it on tape. Unfortunately, it's a Beta Hi-Fi tape...my old Sony still works perfectly, but the tape is buried under hundreds of others. I never got around to buying it on VHS. If Paramount puts out a decent DVD edition I'll have it.
By the way, the key line is "Warriors...come out TO play-ay!"
If you got to see it on ABC-TV in the early 80s, there was an extra scene at the beginning (before the Wonder Wheel): the various Warriors on the boardwalk at CI talking about Cyrus and the truce. This was sometime in the afternoon. Prominently seen is an old warehouse with the word "Warriors" painted large on it. That warehouse was still there as late as January 1989, still painted. Also, at the end where the Gramercy Riffs close in on the leader of the Punks, the ABC version cut abruptly to a shot of a police car screaming down a CI street - and then to commercial. The movie resumed with deejay Lynn Thigpen's apology and the end titles ("Somewhere out on that horizon..."). (I COULD beef about Thigpen's unorthodox method of cuing a record on air, and the fact that a radio station doesn't normally have 24-track recording equipment, but...)
You're right: the soundtrack album is GREAT!
Are you in radio? How do you know that?
The Line seems pretty accurate to me marty, even now. I know because i am from coney island, as for the graffiti battle, the MTA told the Transit police "We'll clean 'em if you keep 'em clean"
The boys think they're home-free, but their train is soon held up by a building fire next to the el. The Warriors walk south through the area to the next station, and are confronted by the Orphans, a
two-bit Puerto Rican gang. The two groups "parley."
And then comes one of the movie's most memorable scenes. The head of the Orphans tells the Warriors that they can walk through the Orphans' turf, but they'll have to take off their "colors." The head of the Warriors ponders this for a moment, and then, in a very matter-of-fact manner, delivers a two-word reply. Those words were not "Happy Birthday" :-)
Getting a tad OT here. But I just thought of something...when the Warriors first encounter the Bronx Orphans, Swan (I think) makes a remark about the other gang's lowly status. (They don't have a "youth officer," nor were they invited to Cyrus' big powwow.) Well, if the Orphans are so minor league how do any of the Warriors know about them at all?
But what's a bad cult movie without plot inconsistencies?
How did they get from 96th St. (which I am assuming is on the 1/2/3/9) to Union Sq. (on the N/R/4/5/6)? They said that USQ was the only place where they had to change trains.
That's one of the mysteries of this movie!
Let's assume that our "heroes," from Coney Island, have never been very far from their turf and aren't familiar with the Eighth Wonder. Or let's just say that USQ, with its many ramps and passages, was a more attractive filming location than the transfer from the West Side lines.
Mercy and Swan have had their little discussion, and rejoin their comrades at Union Square where all are soon spotted by another gang. The Warriors lead their rivals into a mens' room (imagine that...a subway restroom open in the middle of the night in the late 1970s), and win an exceptionally wild brawl.
The last bits of subway content take place on the BMT, presumably the N (they WERE at Union Square, headed to Coney). There's the staredown with the formally-dressed couples, and finally the arrival at Stillwell.
Now, let's retrace their journey. The 2/5 from near the end of the line (the book refers to "a street called two, three, three," which is near Woodlawn Cemetary), interrupted by fire somewhere south of East 180 St (say, Simpson St). They board again at, say, Intervale (remember the book's "Lesbos" reference) and go to "96 St" where their local waits for an express. BUT...didn't the 2 run EXPRESS overnights back then? As I recall the scene their train was definitely "against the wall," even if it was really Hoyt-Schermerhorn!
And what's all this about Union Square? Granted, these Coney Island kids probably didn't know much about NYC outside their turf. But even the semi-literate Rembrandt should have found a better connection from the 2 to the BMT, even as they were trying to avoid the cops and rival gangs. Forget Times Square. If they got off the 2 at 14 St. they would have seen the transfer to 6th Ave trains - the F, the D running local (late night), and possibly the B, all Coney-bound. Or avoid a Manhattan transfer altogether and change at Atlantic-Pacific (which must have been a damn scary station late nights back then). But, NOOO...they gotta take the L down 14 St. (probably after a long wait) to Union. Or maybe they were REALLY mixed up and got the 7 or Shuttle down 42nd to GCT, then took the Lex downtown...AARRRGH!
Even with this particularly crazy commute, "The Warriors" happens to be one of my favorite flicks among many cult movies. (And mind you, I've seen that OTHER cult film, the famous one with Tim Curry, over 1,200 times in theatres.) Also, "The Warriors" is the specific thing which sparked my interest in subways. It's definitely one to own on DVD...if only Paramount's DVDs weren't so expensive!
Thanks for the rundown. Now I want to see the film.
I've seen that OTHER cult film, the famous one with Tim Curry, over 1,200 times in theatres
1,200 times, really? That's like, twice a week, every week, for twelve years? Wow!
I've only see the movie a few times. I hate sad endings. I missed it when it was originally on stage as "The Rocky Horror Show," but I still get to hear Tim Curry a few times a week when my kids watch "The Wild Thornberries." Excellent kid's cartoon.
You could always go see the revival on Broadway right now. Not half bad.
There's a revival of of the Warriors on B'way, I was not aware of it. What theater is it at? I would love to see it
Peace,
ANDEE
No...he meant a revival of "The Rocky Horror Show," the 1973 musical which later became the infamous midnight movie.
The way B'way is going, though, somebody just MIGHT do a musical version of "The Warriors"!!
I hope it comes to London.
Simon
Swindon UK
I have mixed feelings about stage revivals. About 20 years ago I took my mother to see a stage revival of West Side Story. She especially wanted to see it because an old actor friend of hers was playing Doc.
It was interesting to see the original staging and how the dances were performed on stage, where they didn't have the movie advantages of cutting, reshooting and camera angles. But frankly, I liked the movie better (despite the omissions from the play). At least I can see the movie as it was performed while the play was still fresh (1961). I wonder if Rocky Horror might not be the same.
Depends on the production. Reviewers are shredding the touring production of "The Sound of Music" (currently in Washington D.C.)
I've seen three live versions of "Rocky Horror": one was a college summer production (not bad); another, a slightly conservative professional show. But the one in D.C. in late 1990 (Wooly Mammoth) kicked my butt thru the back wall of the theatre! Even wilder at times than the movie. Please note that the play is somewhat different than the movie...for example, Rocky has DIALOGUE! And yes, there can be a certain amount of audience participation during the play.
I saw excerpts of the B'way revival on "Rosie O'Donnell" and was rather disappointed. Joan Jett as Columbia does nothing for me.
My favorite version of "Rocky" is the 1990 London cast CD, which includes most of the dialogue as well as the songs. However, there's a bootleg recording from the same production in which Richard O'Brien himself (the creator of "Rocky Horror") plays Dr. Frank N. Furter! Incredible.
Now...back to the subways!
>>> But frankly, I liked the movie better (despite the omissions from the play). At least I can see the movie as it was performed while the play was still fresh (1961) <<<
Paul;
That's not a fair criticism. The stage and cinema are two different media, and to compare the two, unless the movie is just a filmed stage production is apples and oranges. I saw and enjoyed West Side Story as a movie first (in Cairo with French and Arabic subtitles bringing three different sets of audience reactions), and later saw a version as theater in the round. Because the stage is in the center of the theater, and all entrances and exits were through the aisles, it was altogether different from the Broadway production. And as far as seeing the movie when the play was fresh is concerned, you missed it by a few centuries, since it was fresh when it was performed in the Globe Theater, and every other performance has been an adaptation.
Tom
I wasn't comparing stage and cinema en masse. I was saying specifically that the movie of West Side Story was better than the stage production I saw and I suspect the movie could be better than any stage production due to advantages of the medium and the fact that the movie production was mounted by the original producer and choreographer.
Movies have the advantage of being more in control of their material than plays, so they show off the skills or flaws of their production much more readily. Conversely, there are plays that are so specifically made for the stage, that almost any movie is doomed.
There is another point I was trying to make, however, when I say that an advantage some movies may have is that they're usually staged more contemporaneous to their material. When WSS was made in 1961, the concept and setting were fresh in people's minds--the '50s gangs, the big increase in Puerto Rican population at a time when that community was yet not an established part of the NYC culture. Discussions of WSS were in the papers and sociologists mulled it over. There were even comical takeoffs--I remember a TV skit in which the rival gangs were portrayed as baseball teams who danced from base to base--but you can imagine what happened when someone yelled "Kill the Ump!"
Someone producing West Side Story today almost certainly has to reference the play and former productions more than the social setting than hatched the original--as Paul McCartney said so aptly: "you can't rewarm a souffle."
Those 1,218 shows were spread out over more than 20 years. I'm more or less retired from the RHPS scene now.
The D has been running express along 6th Ave. 24/7 ever since July 1, 1968.
That lavatory brawl took five days to shoot, incidentally.
Frankly, they could have paid more attention to train markings, at least where the BMT is implied.
The D has been running express along 6th Ave. 24/7 ever since July 1, 1968.
That lavatory brawl took five days to shoot, incidentally.
Frankly, they could have paid more attention to train markings, at least where the BMT is implied.
The D has been running express along 6th Ave. 24/7 ever since July 1, 1968. And yes, the 2 was still running express 24/7 between 96th St. and Chambers St. at that time.
That lavatory brawl took five days to shoot, incidentally.
Frankly, they could have paid more attention to train markings, at least where the BMT is implied.
I have The Warriors on video.
It is one of the more bizarre films ever made, so I understand it's underground cult status. I once rented it and screened it with a bunch of friends who never saw it before. I got the same impression from everyone: very bizarre, complete confusion about it's plot, but they loved it anyway.
I realized last night that "The Warriors" has a plot that's somewhat similar to the German TV movie "Das Boot" (The Boat, released in theatres in the U.S.). It's World War II, and a Nazi U-boat (submarine) is trying to get thru enemy waters to its home port, with various crises along the way. Great film.
Fans of "The Warriors" should also check out the comic book trade paperback "300," by Frank Miller. It's based on the same story as "The Warriors"...and note that in Sol Yurick's book of "The Warriors" one of the gang is reading a comic book based on that same story!
Totally off topic but if you want to exercise a Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound system, the Das Boot DVD is incredible.
-Dave
>>> I realized last night that "The Warriors" has a plot that's somewhat similar to the German TV movie "Das Boot" (The Boat, released in theatres in the U.S.) <<<
Any similarity is a coincidence, since "Das Boot" was based on Lothar Guenther Buchheim's anti-war autobiographical novel, which I read in both English and German after seeing the movie. And rather than a TV movie as we think of them here, the movie was edited down from a six hour mini series, and did have a German theatrical run. The movie was quite faithful to the parts of the book that it used.
Tom
I stand corrected. Thanks. Now, if only they'd release the complete mini-series on video here!
Yes, as it's a perfect showing of the system at the depths of despair in the late 1970's.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Warriors the good guys in that opus? And weren't they from Brooklyn? And weren't the bad guys who killed that African-American leader and tried to pin it on the Warriors from the Bronx or Manhattan? Just asking. And don't take me seriously. I'm having a little fun. I told you guys I really enjoyed the North Bronx. But Brooklyn is for the good guys.
The Warriors were the main focus of the film, not exactly "good guys," more like "anti-heroes." Their turf was Coney Island and vicinity. The Punks was the name of the gang whose leader shot Cyrus; their turf was never identified.
In Sol Yurick's 1965 book, "The Warriors" refers to all gang members; the focus is on a group called the Coney Island Dominators, led by "Arnold" (Cleon in the movie). In the book, "Ismael" is the Cyrus character, and his death is the result of confusion, rather than an assassination. There is no attempt to frame the Dominators, and only a fleeting reference to a deejay. The book's equivalent of Mercy never leaves the Bronx; instead, she's abandoned after the gang have their way with her. One of the Dominators finds himself in Times Square, and later has an encounter with a hooker (the book's equivalent of the subway lavatory brawl). In the park near 96th Street, all three Dominators accost the woman and are busted (and she's NOT an undercover cop). Finally, the book's ending is nowhere near as satisfying as the movie's: the book's equivalent of Swan, a black kid, climbs up to his family's squalid tenement apartment and falls asleep on the fire escape.
The book is still a very good read for fans of the movie.
What I'd like to find is a copy of "Warriors of the Wasteland" or "1990: Bronx Warriors" (circa, 1980). Both are "Mad Max" rip-offs in that the storylines are set in post-nuclear holocaust socieites where the 'remnants of humanity' go about battling each other for three precious commodities: arms, gasoline, and water (not necessarily in that order). They're great for laughs for those who enjoy bizarre-action filmmaking.
I believe both movies were set in the Bronx (but if memory serves me, only one of them was filmed on location -- in or around Charlotte Street -- ground zero of the South Bronx devastation of the '70's).
BMTman
Thank you, I had not heard of these movies! I'm interested with anything filmed in the south Bronx and when you mentioned Charlotte, that was even better. A horror film was shot there in 1981. Hollywood actually erected a church in the Charlotte whole for the movie if you can believe that. It's about a man eating wolf living in that abandoned church in the South bronx. LOL!!!!
I guess with all the blight and urban decay going on in that area at that time; Hollywood still could not find that perfect abandoned bldg so they had to build their own!!
The movie was called "Wolfen", and not really worth seeing. I like the urban landscape and the vintage footage taken of the Big whole on Charlotte street. It's worth renting just to see the social and urban changes that have happened in 15 years up there.
OTHERS: Forth Apache the Bronx
escape from the Bronx 1999
Bonfire of the vanities
Wild style.
All of these have been shot up in the Bronx in the early to mid 80's in a time where the southern part of that borough was looking more and more like Beirut.
It's nice to know my twin boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens have never been portrayed in such a negative manner. And the Sea Beach starts in Queens and ends in Brooklyn, an added bonus.
the 43rd still has its hands full
Fort Apache ... now that was a pretty good movie, portrayed the "urban wasteland" scene quite well. I don't remember if it had any subway scenes, however.
Switching from the Bronx to Scotland for a minute, Trainspotting is another excellent movie along the same lines. It follows a bunch of drug addicts who hang out in abandoned buildings. But despite its title, there's practically no rail content.
OK Doug, here goes. What does Charlotte Street look like today? I saw pictures of it in 1977 and it looked like Warsaw, Poland in 1945. Has there been real progress made there. And does anyone have any pictures of it to show us? I really enjoyed the North Bronx, so much so, I didn;t have time to meander into what for me is enemy territory. I will next time, but it would be nice to know if that street has made a comeback of sorts.
there is a repair shop there. It aint good. I'll be there wednsday. I'll take pix and post them
I went to the TM yesterday to get a 2/3 shirt, but there was none in my size. I end up getting a 4 train shirt that was fresh from the box. Also fresh from the box is the "L" train shirt. Hurry, the TM expects it to go like hotcakes........
Well... I have the 1..
If they got a 9... I'm cooked.
As the expression goes, I'll believe it when I see it.
About a year ago, someone connected with the Flatbush terminal redevelopment asked me for a picture of the old station. He said they were hoping to build the new structure to look similar to the old one. I hope that is still in their plans.
Too bad the city fathers didn't let Peter O'Malley build his new Ebbets Field there. Would have been an ideal locale transportation wise like MSG
Too bad the city fathers didn't let Peter O'Malley build his new Ebbets Field there. Would have been an ideal locale transportation wise like MSG
I recall reading that the city did offer the site to O'Malley, but he decided that Los Angeles was a better place for the team and declined the offer.
You're right, though, the site is excellent in terms of transit access.
What I read (Howard Cosell's autobiography) was that Walter O'Malley did want the stadium there. At the time, the LIRR was privately owned and who had a big chunk of stock?......Walter O'Malley. The city offered to build him what is in effect today Shea Stadium. He turned them down.
It should also be mentioned that he had already bought (at the time) relatively inexpensive land in the LA area called Chavez Ravine. Once LA consented to build Dodger Stadium on that land, the deal was done.
In retrospect, despite the conflict of interest, the city should have acceded to O'Malley's request. It probably would have saved Downtown Brooklyn through the 60's and 70's, not to mention the source of pride to Brooklynites in having a major sport franchise with the Brooklyn name. (I haven't lived in NY since 1972, so I don't know what's Downtown now. My grandmother went through it after the 1977 blackout and said it looked like it had been hit with a pogrom!!!)
IIRC Robert Moses had a lot to do with the new Dodger ballpark not being built at Atlantic and Flatbush.
I can't say for sure, but he probably had a lot to do with the Shea offering. I believe it was on public land at the World's Fair site (1939 and 1964) near a confluence of planned or existing highways. That seems to fit the Moses style.
According to Moses's book PUBLIC WORKS, in June 1953 O'Malley wanted to shoehorn a plan for a new stadium into the Title I rebuilding of Fort Greene but that Moses rejected it because adding such a building would have contravened federal Title I guidelines and jeopardized the entire plan.
Like much in PUBLIC WORKS, this does not have the conspicuous ring of truth. Moses himself admits that the project was analogous to the Coliseum, being built with Title I funds at Columbus Circle.
According to THE POWER BROKER, Moses also blocked something called the City Sports Authority, which would have been charged with keeping both the Dodgers and the Giants in town.
This would be a response to Keychains posted by me on Thu Oct 26 12:51:50 2000.
Not only are the lucite and metal keychains have the C with an orange bullet bullet for 47-50 Rock Center, there are now coffee mugs for the station, with B, F, and Q in orange bullets, and C IN A BLUE BULLET! Who designs these products, anyway?
Kalikow wants to take over the PATH do we can have a unified fare. So far the Port Authority says no. Both state legislatures and the fedrl govt have to approve. Of course we can not have track connections but a single fare structure with free transfer between PATH and NYCT bus/subway. SOURCE:WCBS TV
That works wonderfully here in Boston. My monthly MBTA commuter pass gives me unlimited access to:
Commuter rail trains up to and including my "zone."
All rapid transit and streetcar lines
All bus and trackless lines
Boston Harbor water shuttle.
As an added benefit, I can:
Take a friend for free on any service all day on Sunday
Receive 15% off the comprehensive part of my auto insurance (by sending the used passes to them upon renewal)
My employer also subsidizes my pass (50%), but for those who can't take advantage of this kind of program, the MBTA sells annual pass subscriptions at the rate of 12 months for the price of 11.
Boston is in the center of its state, rather than half of a metropolitan area which spans 2 (or more) states, which is the case for most metro areas on the East Coast (NY, Philly, DC). This is because rivers form the center of physical cities, but political boundaries. Hence the need for bi-state agencies such as PANYNJ, DRPA, etc. However, I agree that SEPTA definitely needs to consolidate its fare structure. The way it's set up now, Philadelphia County may as well be a separate state from Pennsylvania, making a 5 state metro area.
[Kalikow wants to take over the PATH do we can have a unified fare. So far the Port Authority says no. Both state legislatures and the fedrl govt have to approve. Of course we can not have track connections but a single fare structure with free transfer between PATH and NYCT bus/subway. SOURCE:WCBS TV]
Heh I'm all in favor of a unified fare, but I think I'd rather see everything including the MTA taken over by New Jersey Transit . . .
We need to stop thinking of isolationism-- people freely cross the artifical borders between NJ and NJ constantly. Perhaps it is time for a new agency --the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) which would include the current MTA agencies(NYCT,LIRR,MNRR, Bridges/Tunnels), PATH,Airports,Lincoln/Holland/S.I.Bridges, GW Bridge, NJT, HBLR, Newark Subway, etc. Both states would have responsibility for this agency. Each agency would have representatives on the RTA. NY has already realized this and created the MTA. One of the first things the RTA (if established) should do is one ticket on the railroads--ie Trenton to Montauk, White Plains to Trenton, Wassaic to Babylon, etc. PATH, HBLR, NYCT, Newark Subway should use the MetroCard with a two hour span for transfer./Customers to/from NYCT should be allowed two transfers such as is done with S.I. at present.
[Subway should use the MetroCard with a two hour span for transfer./Customers to/from NYCT should be allowed two transfers such as is done with S.I. at present. ]
They really should have unlimited transfers within 2 h period.
Arti
[We need to stop thinking of isolationism-- people freely cross the artifical borders between NJ and NJ constantly. Perhaps it is time for a new agency --the RTA (Regional Transportation Authority) which would include the current MTA agencies(NYCT,LIRR,MNRR, Bridges/Tunnels), PATH,Airports,Lincoln/Holland/S.I.Bridges, GW Bridge, NJT, HBLR, Newark Subway, etc.]
I had almost the identical thought last night! I was reading the EIS for the East Side Access Project, and then I was reading about the Access to the Region's Core project, and one of the main problems with what they're doing is that everybody's working at cross purposes.
To avoid the sort of petty squabbles that have beset the Port Authority, they could start with a subsidy/capital construction formula based on the actual cost of providing services to each state's residents -- so that for example if NJ residents accounted for 1/3 the overall costs above the cost of the fare NJ would pay 1/3 of the bills.
I would love for PATCO to take over management of SEPTA! Just imagine: $1.10 fares, free transfers, subway cashiers who make change, busses that run on schedule and don't skip stops with passengers waiting, conductors that don't curse or use racial slurs, random drug tests for train operators, a NE subway, and commuter rail to Reading, West Chester, and Newtown... wow!
One cool thing about merging PATH with the subway is they could eliminate the walls on 14th St/6th Ave and create an accross the platform transfer.
How about merging the fare structure of the Long Island Railroad and Metro Nroth Railroad? The fare zones are comparable, and I reckon you could make, say Hicksville and Hartsdale the same "zone". And then you could buy one ticket from Long Island to Westchester or beyond for less than the cost of two commuter railroad tickets. Until they connect the LIRR to GCT and MNRR to Penn*, they should also make the tickets scannable for a riade on the subway between the two systems, either via Penn or Woodside.
*I have heard plans to use the physical connection already in place to run Metro North's Hudson and New Haven lines into Penn, but they'll never have the capacity to do so until LIRR is connected to GCT and some LIRR trains can vacte Penn.
:-) Andrew
BRAVO, YEA, do it now! Frankly I don't care it the agencies are merged (in fact its better not because then the various unions might all have contracts expire in concert) but making the services more seamless for the riders YESYES YES. And thanks to electronics(actually paper works just as well) there are fewer excuses for not instituing these intersystem fares. Step one MTA farecard valid for PATH (I am sure the bean counters can figure out a method for revenue division) In Chicagoland the NICTD and RTA seem to be able to administrate South Shore Line service, although they have not yet figured out simply letting Metra riders use SSL trains within Chicago without different tickets. Older railfans may remember that in PRR times a single fare structure existed between PRR and LIRR for trips over both systems. Everything old is new again
I just heard on the news that SEPTA's fares may go up as much as
$2.00!! They also plan to raise the price of tokens, but they didn't
say by how much yet. Although I don't use SEPTA on a daily basis, I'm
already starting to hoard tokens for use when I visit my friends in
Philly or when I railfan, so it will be a while before the fare
increase affects me. As of now, I haven't heard any date on when the
fare increase will go into affect. When the fares do go up, I hope
there will be a sharp drop in ridership to the point that the fare
increase will hurt SEPTA more than help them, prompting them to
lower the fares again to lure riders back. SEPTA riders, start
hoarding your tokens!!!
1}
2}
3}
4}
avid
How much higher can those go? I don't have SEPTA tokens and they have cheated me on the fares as it is. They once said you couldn't transfer from the 44 to the MFL.
Click here for the Thursday Daily News story about Kalikow telling the Daily News editorial board that the TA is running tests to see whether it can maintain G service along with the V and the others.
Thanks for posting that.
That's good news. I was willing to accept the proposed service plan, and I'm interested to see how they factor in the rolling stock issue, but I'm not one to quibble when MTA tries to be considerate of riders. Good for them, good for us.
Based on the number of TPH they plan to run for the G, the total between the G, R and V trains probably won't be as many as the combined B, D and Q between DeKalb and Rockefeller Center.
The main handicap will be the number of available cars, though if they cut the V back to eight car R-32 trains instead of running 10 car R-32s or eight car R-46s, that might free up enough rolling stock to cover the extension of the G back to Continental Ave...
...or they could tell the insurance company to take a flying leap on their liability fears and just move some of the surplus Redbirds over to the B Division and put skirts on them to handle the car shortage until the R-143s go into service.
To scrape up equipment for an extended G, rather than cut the V trains in length
1) cut the M to 6 cars
2) cut the Z back to 111th Street
2) put R110's on the Franklin Shuttle (either extend the platforms 50 feet or cut them to 2 cars) to free up 4 R68's.
>>1) cut the M to 6 cars<<
Ever rode on a rush hour M train?
>>2) put R110's on the Franklin Shuttle (either extend the platforms 50 feet or cut them to 2 cars) to free up 4 R68's.<<
1. They aren't going to extend any platforms.
2. 4 R68's. Big whoooop. How about running that 9 car train on Queens Plaza. Then you get 9 more cars.
Send 54 M 1 s from the LIRR to Staten Island for the 60 R/44s. Take these SI R/44 to the "A" . Take 80 r/38s from "A" to the "C". Take 80 r/32 from the "C" to the "V".
Maybe the R/110b to the Rock Park shuttle , frees 8 R/44s , dominoes to 10 more r/32s to the "V"
avid
The LIRR doesn't have any M-1's to spare, and SIRT would require clearance work for 85' cars.
You're right on the first, wrong on the second, see.
That looks like diesel cars, or at least to my untrained eyes. I didn't know there were electric cars that look like that? Or did they have a few horses come and drag the train along?
:-) Andrew
Those are the same exact cars as the coaches just retired from the LIRR. They used to be MUs, but were castrated after the arrival of the M-1.
Now THAT is cool; a three-eyed Owl car with plain rubber seals (not the rivets) around the "eyes"; that is one of the ZIPs' I think they call it MP-72 - that's short of the 85 feet the M-1 class is - anyway there is no curve that I know of (WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION of one near Saint George) on the SIR that is so tight it would preclude the use of an 85-foot car. Please correct me if I am wrong here. That wouldn't be a bad idea, sending M-1s to the SIR once the M-7s start arriving.
wayne
The one near St George is the one I was thinking that the MP72's couldn't handle.
>>1) cut the M to 6 cars<<
>>Ever rode on a rush hour M train?
Everyone says here the ones from Brooklyn in the morning are under-utilized.
>>2) put R110's on the Franklin Shuttle (either extend the platforms 50 feet or cut them to 2 cars) to free up 4
R68's.<<
>> They aren't going to extend any platforms.
They could do it in a weekend. Whether they wan to or not is irrelevant.
>>2. 4 R68's. Big whoooop. How about running that 9 car train on Queens Plaza. Then you get 9 more cars.
4 R68's is one G train. Three of the R110's are dead. When their donor parts are depleted, the middle cars go next, then the R143's arrive, and they scrap the whole thing.
...or they could tell the insurance company to take a flying leap on their liability fears and just move some of the surplus Redbirds over to the B Division and put skirts on them to handle the car shortage until the R-143s go into service.
RRRRRIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT !!!!!!
"The main handicap will be the number of available cars, though if they cut the V back to eight car R-32 trains instead of running 10 car R-32s or eight car R-46s, that might free up enough rolling stock to cover the extension of the G back to Continental Ave..."
Can they cut the G to 4 cars instead of 6?
N Bwy
Or as another possible compromise: extend G service to Queens Plaza, instead of stopping at Court Square.
That would only be one station further than the proposed plan -- no need find extra rolling stock to go all the way to Forest Hills -- and provide a platform-to-platform transfer for G riders to go to Manhattan or on to Queens. Much of the coverage I've seen has focused on the long hike between Court Square and 23rd Street.
Nowhere for the (G) to turn arround at Queens Plaza, not without getting in the way of both express tracks. The first place north of Court Square where it could conceivably turn arround is 46th St/Broadway, since there is a crossover between that stop and Northern Blvd. But even that would mean holding up the (R) and (V), and 46th dosen't have facilities that terminals usually have.
[Nowhere for the (G) to turn arround at Queens Plaza]
True. My thought was that the G could slide into Queens Plaza between Rs, then quickly return southward on the track it came in on. A return T/O would have to be waiting. Perhaps plain infeasible. But all the options aren't very good.
That would really hold up the (R).
:-) Andrew
Could there be a plan where you run the G service to Continentle on weekends and off-peak weekdays? It's only during rush-hours that the system is short cars and turn-arounds at Queens Plaza would tie up the rest of the line. At least the people who live on the southern end of the G could have some one-seat service to Forest Hills for a part of the time.
[run the G service to Continentle on weekends and off-peak weekdays]
Even more likely (issue is not what is best). I could see MTA doing that. Congestion is less, cars are more available, and it would easier to completely cut the G off in the future.
Again, a lot of people here are absent of the fact that there are many more spare MUs than the TA leads you to believe. According to Joe Korman's Site:
CAR CLASS MU FLEET TOTAL MU IN SERVICE TOTAL SPARES
R32 (ALL) 594 520 74
R38 196 166 30
R40 SLANT 292 256 36
R40 MOD 100 73 27
R42 392 347 45
R44 278 232 46
R46 752 692 60
R68 425 389 36
R68A 200 172 28
R110B 9 6! 3!
R143 @ @
================================================================
3238 2853 385
!=MU class number may be 9 or 6.
@=On Order
The TA has 385 B Division spare MUs. All of these MUs are not being shopped at all times. Even if you factor that 50% of the spare MUs are in the shop, that still leaves 192 spare units, more than enough to operate "G" service to Forest Hills, "V" service at 8 or 10 cars, and perhaps enough to operate "G" at 8 or 10 cars during peak times.
I would propose to turn the "G" at 179, which has plenty of spare capacity as a terminal station. Ridership is there (33% increase according to the TA's own figures) and MU availabilty is present, as shown above.
"I would propose to turn the "G" at 179, which has plenty of spare capacity as a terminal station. Ridership is there (33% increase according to the TA's own figures) and MU availabilty is present, as shown above."
The V is better suited for that area (179th Terminal) than the G. Because it will provide a one trip ride to Manhattan.
N Broadway Line
Hey! I'm all for express-local service all the way 179th St. That was my whole speech at the MTA hearing--and when I was interviewed by Channel 7.
:-) Andrew
Could you show me the guy taking local from 179th St.
Let's not forget "the misguided commuter" from DN story who took 4 trains to CU.
Arti
show me the guy taking local from 179th St.
The guy on his way to a night job after getting off the N6 (one of the few nightly LI Bus services). Or the unfortunate souls who must ride Manhattan bound after about 11:30 P or Queensbound before 6:20 A.
I could show you any commuter from 179/169/Van Wyck who would be more than happy to take an alternate train than the "F".
I remember when Archer first went in, the rush hour R originated at 179, as did 5 of the E trains in the AM rush only. The local realators threatened to sue the TA for lowering their real estate values for giving local stations east of Continental a local R rather than the an E or F that ran express west of Continental. The outcome was to kill the R east of Continental, the few E's from 179 diverted to Archer, and the few F's that originated at Contintental extended to start at 179th.
Shame. The "R" should be extended to 179. Then you have plenty of room to turn the "G" and the "V".
Don't forget, even though the TA won't admit it, we have the rolling stock. Look up a few posts in this thread to see the nummber of MUs available.
"Shame. The "R" should be extended to 179."
As bad as some people claim the R is, I love it. Many times when I wait for the N, two R's shows up. That makes me sick to my stomach, since the N is much more crowded than the R.
N Bwy
That's funny. The R riders claim that 2 N's show up before the R comes!
I claim that zero Ns show up before the R never shows up.
The reason is clear.
Occasionally, for whatever reason, two of the same train show up consecutively when they're supposed to alternate. Say two X trains show up before a Y train arrives. If you're waiting for the Y train, you'll notice the discrepancy and probably post about it here. If you're waiting for the X train, you'll never know about the second one since (unless you just missed or didn't fit on the first one) you're not waiting anymore when it arrives.
So, naturally, N riders complain about successive R's while R riders complain about successive N's. They're both correct.
And if one stands there and does some train watching, on an hours time, both services will have an equlal number of trains. On the Queens IND, of course it is 1 E to 1 F. At times 2 or 3 of the same service comes in consecutively. But it balances out in time.
I've never seen 2 consecutive Fs before an E, but am very accustomed to seeing two consecutive Es before an F, and no I'm not biased, this is when monitoring the train sequence over time. It gets me very annoyed how people say there are 18Fs per hour and 12Es and I seem to have much greater chances of getting on an E at Roosevelt.
I don't agree that the "N" is as crowded as the "R", especially on the Queens IND section going to Manhattan in the AM, and going to Brooklyn in the PM. But the "N" is close.
Doesn't compare with the "B" heading southbound into Brooklyn, even on a Saturday lately!
Don't forget the (B)arely.
"That would only be one station further than the proposed plan -- no need find extra rolling stock to go all the way to Forest Hills -- and provide a platform-to-platform transfer for G riders to go to Manhattan or on to Queens. Much of the coverage I've seen has focused on the long hike between Court Square and 23rd Street."
That's not practical, they isn't enough time available to turn around trains without blocking the Queens Blvd Corridor. The only rational solution is to send the G to 71st Street and turn it around there.
N Broadway Line
Another reason to support my rant about the Q which should be going to Queens, or at least the express part of the Q. Think about it: If you run the Q to Qns Blvd then you save cars than if you run the V there. The new service proposed is Forest hills to 2nd Ave Manhatttan. If you implemented the Q to Queens and killed the V, you get new service going from 71 Ave {fine I'll let it end there} to 57 St and 7th Ave seeing as how the rest of the Q will be there anyway. That saves at least 3-4 trains worth of cars. These preciously saved cars can go to the G and since they can easily fit the G in the G can get out there. As for cars for the Q, put 2-3 R46s on it, and make 1 or 2 permanent R32s go to it too. So the cars come from both Jamaica and Coney Island. So what? The A isn't too much different.
I think there are two things going on with why the TA wants to cut back the G: 1) they're challenged with having to manage three different services on one track if they don't have to; and 2) they want to reserve all Queens Blvd. trackage for Manhattan service, finally realizing that it was a mistake to route the GG without direct Manhattan service 6-7 decades ago.
The big point with (2) is that they probably figured they could get away with eliminating the G at the same time they introduced the new V--since it would seem they're substituting something better for something worse.
OTOH, if they run the G, R and V altogether and THEN want to increase V service, they'll never be able to kill off the G.
You bring up excellent points. I would like to pursue your second point.
First, it should be noted that every tunnel crossing under the East River is two tracks. I'm assuming this is due to cost considerations.
As a result, only the most "important" trains cross the river. For the basic IND, these were the single-lettered expresses.
The Washington Heights and Concourse lines have express and local service for the boroughs of the Bronx and "Upper Manhattan." There is no river major river crossing, since the Harlem is so narrow and shallow. Once reaching midtown, the need for local and express service seems to decline. There are only 3 pure local stops on the 8th Av line (50, 23, Spring) and none (prior to 1967) on the 6th Av line. The locals ended at Chambers St, 2nd Av/Bway-Laf or 34 St.
The Queens line does have a river crossing. The E and F both cross. Would there have been room for a third train in those times? Maybe not.
Now we look at the Brooklyn "extensions" of the IND. First, only two tracks cross the river. Maybe there are plans for only one express line on each crossing. Two tracks come into Jay St. Now we come to 4 track extensions on both Fulton and South Brooklyn. But where do the local trains come from? For South Brooklyn, the local from the Queens line is pressed into double duty. The GG is born, though it never fulfills its destiny in South Brooklyn except for a few short years in the early 1970's. It also gives the IND a foothold in Williamsburg, Greenpoint and LIC.
Now let's go off on a tangent. Where does the local on Fulton St come from? When I was a kid in Rockaway, the roll signs on the HH claimed it was the Fulton St local. I had seen old maps with Court St station on them. I had seen the outside tracks at Hoyt/Schermerhorn. I thought, maybe the HH served the same purpose on Fulton St in days gone by that the GG was serving in Queens and potentially in South Brooklyn. Since there was no convenient place to go after Hoyt, it terminated and turned around at Court. Now, after over 30 years of speculation, I discover nycsubway.org and find that the HH, despite what the roll signs said, despite its potential, was used only as a one-stop shuttle for about 10 years between Hoyt and Court, in an area already well serviced by all 3 branches.
Back to Queens. The borough experiences phenomenal growth, but no major subway expansion. The first alleviation is connecting with the BMT via the 60th Street tunnel. Forty years later, this is still not enough. So now, let's go through another two track tunnel at 63rd. The proximity of this tunnel to the other two (53rd and 60th), and the fact it connects with both the 6th Av and Broadway lines, makes it, in fact, the two extra tracks to the first 4 track crossing from Queens. Enter the V.
But the Queens line supposedly can't take more than two expresses and two locals. (That's what we have had on CPW at rush hours for decades.) So eliminate the G. The problem is that the TA didn't count on ridership increases on the line. The free transfer with the L (another neglected line) is not adequate for people living in Greenpoint to get to midtown.
If the G can't go to Forest Hills anymore, how about this: build a spur from Court Sq to 21 St/Queensbridge and terminate it there.
I await your response.
If you're going to build a spur track, why not extend the G line to a new lower level at Queens Plaza and use the opportunity to upgrade Queens Plaza to full ADA standards. I use ADA as a standard because it not only serves the handicapped. It makes the station stroller, shopper and elderly-friendly and will allow station patrons to bring luggage onto the subway, meaning AirTrain (which will be fully ADA-compliant, including subway transfers) will be accessible to them too.
This has been discussed many times by many people. If the archive system is working, you can see the previous posts.
I wheeled my tool kit around the MTA for a year, and was extremely thankful for the improvements (even ramps) mandated by the ADA. especially the elevators!
Dave
Your points are well taken, especially when comparing the ease of crossing the Harlem vs. East Rivers.
The IND had a different philosophy of operation than the BMT. The BMT idea was to route every line possible to CBD destinations. Secondary local lines provide for the main service (In fact, highway planners call these "relief roads"--not the same as service roads).
So on the BMT the Brighton Local provided relief for the Brighton Express in addition to providing local services in Brooklyn and Manhattan. If the express was too crowded, the overflow went to the local where you could get less crowding or even a seat in exchange for a longer ride.
Likewise the 4th Avenue Local relieved the Sea Beach and West End and the Broadway Short Line relieved the Jamaica.
IND planners, OTOH, viewed local lines as feeders, so the HH was supposed to provide local service on the Fulton Street Line and the GG was supposed to a major bargain, providing local service on the Queens and Brooklyn (Coney Island) Lines and a Crosstown service between Brooklyn and Queens. Looked real good on paper.
Can anyone point me in the direction of a website or other resource where I can find information on the deeper levels of NYC's subway line, with special interest in those areas that might be abandoned? In addition to website URLs, suggestions of museums, books, etc. are welcome as well.
I'm currently working on a fiction series and need this information as part of my research.
Thank you.
Sencho
New York, NY
Here is a site with considerable information on abandon