SubTalk Archive 5/1997

Thread title: Keranu's "Numerous Subway Questions" #19 (754692)
Started on Thu May 1 12:24:00 1997, by Wayne Johnson

Subject: Keranu's "Numerous Subway Questions" #19
Message Number: 754692
Posted by: Wayne Johnson
Date: Thu May 1 12:24:00 1997

I would like for someone to settle a dispute about this question. Does anyone out there remember when the R-62's were about to be delivered. At that time (early 80's) the TA was still losing the graffiti battle and I distinctly remember the R-62 (and of course future orders) was the talk of the town because we were finally getting new equipment for the IRT, which was long overdue and these cars would feature stainless steel with another substance that would make graffiti removal from them much easier than with the older equipment. I realize that NYCTA had also instituted a policy of removing graffiti from cars immediately, but I know I'm not losing my mind about the R-62's (and R62-A,68 & 68-A's) being built with this special substance. I'm sure someone must know this, especially Joe Korman - I'll be sure to e-mail him on this.

Thread title: Queens Bus Service (754705)
Started on Thu May 1 18:11:08 1997, by Charles Fiori

Subject: Queens Bus Service
Message Number: 754705
Posted by: Charles Fiori
Date: Thu May 1 18:11:08 1997

I know I have been out of Northeast Queens for a long time, but when did service stop running all night and also only every 1/2 hour on Saturdays? I also remember that the Q15 used to take over the Q14 route late at night. Finally, don't forget about my interest in older bus destination signs. I have a fair amount of blue/red/white, some blue/white, and a smattering of others. I'll take a look at whatever's out there. Thanks.

Thread title: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways (754709)
Started on Thu May 1 21:32:08 1997, by John

Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
Message Number: 754709
Posted by: John
Date: Thu May 1 21:32:08 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 01, 1997 at 16:30:17: How did you simulate it?
- Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
- Message Number: 754727
- Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
- Date: Fri May 2 12:43:25 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by John on May 01, 1997 at 21:32:08: Nothing fancy. I determined the distances between stops and applied the standard motion equations v = a x t and d = d0 + v0 x t + .5 x a x t ** 2 as appropriate. A dwell time is added for each station along the way. It works pretty well for the 1 line, non rush hour. Other lines require a second average speed for certain runs due to sharp curves, interlockings, and bridge and tunnel grades. It works for non rush hours, when stop times are pretty consistent. It was the reason behind my question re: exact routings some time ago.
  - Subject: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
  - Message Number: 754621
  - Posted by: jon
  - Date: Tue Apr 29 12:32:09 1997
    
    at what rate do subways accelerate and decelerate, please answer, i need the info for my physics class thanks
    - Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
    - Message Number: 754631
    - Posted by: gary jacobi
    - Date: Tue Apr 29 18:09:56 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by jon on April 29, 1997 at 12:32:09: This is a physics problem, not to be solved by outside knowledge! Let me help you anyhow; various subway systems and different car designs have different accel and decel rates determined by power to weight ratios. BUT (and this is what the professor wants to hear from you) these rates are limited to the amount of force that can be transmitted up from the rails, and this in turn is equal to the weight of the car times the coeficient of friction. If this were equal to 1.0, the car could accelerate at one G, since the force would equal the mass. You can deduce 1) that the coeficient is less than one, and 2) that the G force is EQUAL to the coeficient.
      - Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
      - Message Number: 754636
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Tue Apr 29 19:50:37 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by jon on April 29, 1997 at 12:32:09:
        
        Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
        Message Number: 754637
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue Apr 29 20:01:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by jon on April 29, 1997 at 12:32:09: It's really not complicated at all. There are 3 rates to be concerned with: Accelleration in Light Load (AW0) through Heavy Load (AW3) is set at 3 MPH/Sec Normal braking in AW0 - AW3 = 3.5 MPH/Sec. (Dynamic or Pneumatic) Braking in Emergency Application = 3 MPH/Sec. The rates are part of the specifications set at the time the cars are ordered and hold true for all car classes with the possible exception of the R110A and R110B. The accelleration rates are maintained despite car load via a load sensor mounted on the #1 truck. It continually senses the car load and compensates by adjusting accelleration current or brake cylinder pressure so all cars maintain a constant rate regardless of load. Four load levels are usually specified. AW0 = An empty car AW1 = The car and a given load weight AW2 = The car and an increased load weight AW3 = The car and its expected maximum load. Hope that this helps....
        
        Subject: Re: what is the acceleration and decel of subways
        Message Number: 754702
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Thu May 1 16:30:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]what is the acceleration and decel of subways posted by jon on April 29, 1997 at 12:32:09: I worked out a simulation recently, and found that if you use an accelleration/decelleration rate of about 2.5 mphps and a running speed of about 35mph you can come pretty close to the NYCT published schedule times. Unfortunately I don't remember the station dwell time that I used to do this but if you are interested I will post the exact numbers. On the No. 1 train, where there are no interlockings in the normal operation and no steep grades or sharp curves (except at SF) my simulation came within 1 minute at every published location.

Thread title: Re: New Cars (754710)
Started on Thu May 1 21:32:45 1997, by Andrew Huie

Subject: Re: New Cars
Message Number: 754710
Posted by: Andrew Huie
Date: Thu May 1 21:32:45 1997

In Reply to: [6]New Cars posted by Charles Fiori on April 30, 1997 at 17:56:09: Did Kawasaki get the remainder of the order (about 400)? Last I heard Amrail was out of the picture.
- Subject: Re: New Cars
- Message Number: 754715
- Posted by: James
- Date: Thu May 1 23:28:21 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: New Cars posted by Andrew Huie on May 01, 1997 at 21:32:45: Yup, 680 for Bombardier and 400 for Kawasaki. The amazing thing is that the TA got 1080 cars for the price they had expected to pay for 740 cars. I guess the TA finally woke up and done something right for a change. First deliveries is expected sometime in early 1999.
  - Subject: Re: New Cars
  - Message Number: 754719
  - Posted by: Charles Fiori
  - Date: Fri May 2 06:50:23 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: New Cars posted by Andrew Huie on May 01, 1997 at 21:32:45: Yes, AmRail is out. Kawasaki will build theirs in Yonkers (Yahnkiz).
    - Subject: Re: New Cars
    - Message Number: 754778
    - Posted by: Julio Perez
    - Date: Mon May 5 09:12:41 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: New Cars posted by Andrew Huie on May 01, 1997 at 21:32:45: Are there any pictures of the sketches of what the new cars will look like?
      - Subject: New Cars
      - Message Number: 754684
      - Posted by: Charles Fiori
      - Date: Wed Apr 30 17:56:09 1997
        
        Bombardier wins the contract for 680 new subway cars. Anybody with a Bloomberg screen, punch up story 150050. First Delivery expected within 19 months from the October '97 start date.

Thread title: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! (754712)
Started on Thu May 1 23:11:50 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
Message Number: 754712
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Thu May 1 23:11:50 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Bryan Layne on April 30, 1997 at 17:15:25: do u know the fleeet numbers,,and other info about the new artic bus nycta
- Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
- Message Number: 754720
- Posted by: Wayne Johnson
- Date: Fri May 2 09:25:23 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by John on May 01, 1997 at 21:30:39: The TA operates 34 CNG Orion Model V buses. They are assigned to the Jackie Gleason (formerly Fifth Ave) depot in Brooklyn.
  - Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
  - Message Number: 754721
  - Posted by: Dan Lawrence
  - Date: Fri May 2 09:53:50 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by MJS on April 30, 1997 at 20:08:09: THe "humps" on top are probably A/C units, as artic's are usually too large to use the standard A/C units. Baltimore has 10 Orion artics with rooftop A/C units. (The buses are diesels with Cummins engines.
    - Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
    - Message Number: 754723
    - Posted by: Dan Lawrence
    - Date: Fri May 2 09:54:22 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by MJS on April 30, 1997 at 20:08:09: THe "humps" on top are probably A/C units, as artic's are usually too large to use the standard A/C units. Baltimore has 10 Orion artics with rooftop A/C units. (The buses are diesels with Cummins engines.
      - Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
      - Message Number: 754734
      - Posted by: Bryan Layne
      - Date: Fri May 2 18:23:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Bryan Layne on April 30, 1997 at 17:15:25: There are other pictures of these buses at [7]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d602.jpg/ , [8]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d60.jpg and [9]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d60.html .
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754735
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Fri May 2 18:24:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Bryan Layne on April 30, 1997 at 17:15:25: There are other pictures of these buses at [7]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d602.jpg/ , [8]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d60.jpg and [9]www.newflyer.com/hifloor/d60.html .
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754738
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Sat May 3 11:02:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Bryan Layne on May 02, 1997 at 18:24:17: oooops....your gonna have to type these in and drop the slashes at the end.....for some reason its not loading with those at the end of the address.
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754773
        Posted by: Charles Fiori
        Date: Mon May 5 06:54:23 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Bryan Layne on May 02, 1997 at 18:24:17: For all you articulated fans out there, anyone have a clue as to why NYCT artic #1052 (what kind of bus was the last in NYC to carry that number?) was southbound on I-294 just outside of Chicago on Saturday afternoon? Was it trying to start a record for longest local route in the country?
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754787
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Mon May 5 16:00:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Charles Fiori on May 05, 1997 at 06:54:23: i guess it has to have a way to get to the city from where its built?
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754919
        Posted by: Mark Del Monte
        Date: Mon May 12 22:20:08 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Dan Lawrence on May 02, 1997 at 09:54:22: Do you have any pictures of the orion artics I didn't even know orion made artics
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754932
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Tue May 13 20:27:18 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Mark Del Monte on May 12, 1997 at 22:20:08: theyre not orions, theyre new flyer d60's
        
        Subject: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754640
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Tue Apr 29 21:05:04 1997
        
        has anyone seen any of these and know what im talking about.. they look almost exactly like the Orion V but they have the accordion thingy in the middle and some bumps on the roof which i assume has something to do with CNG.. i seem them all the time outside of my school with "training bus" on the front light thingy.. anyone know what line(s) they will be used on and when? theyve been training for a while already..
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754654
        Posted by: Dan
        Date: Wed Apr 30 08:57:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Lefty on April 29, 1997 at 21:05:04: They are going to start using them on Bronx local runs. A coach-seat version may be in the works for the Staten Island ($4.00 fare) express buses.The MTA has been talking about a '60-seat' Staten Island express bus for about two years now, and the 'accordian' bus seems to be what they will eventually purchase.
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754655
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Wed Apr 30 09:24:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Lefty on April 29, 1997 at 21:05:04: Yes, It's built by New Flyer. It's in NYC testing at this time. The articulated New Flyer is assigned to the Kingsbridge Depot (Bronx Bus division) and operates on the Bx1 route which operates on the Grand Concourse from 138th Street (Mott Haven) to 231 St & Riverdale Ave. I don't think it's a CNG bus as the "humps on top" are somewhat small, but I could be wrong.
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754670
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Wed Apr 30 15:11:00 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Wayne Johnson on April 30, 1997 at 09:24:26: hey! i got to ride on one of the articulated busses today! it was assigned to pick up kids from my Highschool, the bronx high school of science, which is a block off of the route.. it was running as a BX1.. i talked to the bus driver about it and he said that they'll be running in regular service on teh BX1 and BX2 and are already running on the bx55.. about the bus: IT KICKED ASS! it had 62 seats, very good air conditioning, makes a computer"beep" instead of an actual ring when you ring for a stop, and its like a rollercoaster ride.. its so weird to see the front section of the bus through your window when it turns and youre sitting in the back.. i also sat in the middle part which is a circle where the accodion is. its was sooooo cool.. the bus also has very good shocks, its quiet, and the "kneeling action" is also more smooth and it beepps while it raises and lowers.. the doors are also MUCH wider.. its a GREAT design..
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754677
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Wed Apr 30 17:15:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Lefty on April 29, 1997 at 21:05:04: I think that would be a New Flyer D60 articulated bus.Although for some reason(even though its a high floor bus) it still has the air conditioning things on top(like the weird looking low-floor ones).BC Transit has some that are similar(but lack the things on top),there is a picture of one at [7]members.aol.com/busspot2/bc3.htm/ (part of the Busspot website) if your interested.
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754687
        Posted by: MJS
        Date: Wed Apr 30 20:08:09 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by Wayne Johnson on April 30, 1997 at 09:24:26: The bus can't be CNG because all NYCT CNG busses are assigned to the Jackie Gleason Depot in Brooklyn, it is the only depot with the neccessary equipment.
        
        Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!!
        Message Number: 754708
        Posted by: John
        Date: Thu May 1 21:30:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by MJS on April 30, 1997 at 20:08:09: I didn't even know the TA had CNG busses! What routes are they using them on?

Thread title: philadelphia railroad websites (754713)
Started on Thu May 1 23:18:36 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: philadelphia railroad websites
Message Number: 754713
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Thu May 1 23:18:36 1997

In Reply to: [6]Broad Street Line (Philly) posted by Ben on April 26, 1997 at 19:50:22: looking for websites,,dealing only with philadelphia and wilmington delawre,,,,i am on the dvarp membership mailings,,,looking for others,,dealing with regional rail specifically
- Subject: Re: philadelphia railroad websites
- Message Number: 754726
- Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
- Date: Fri May 2 11:56:15 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]philadelphia railroad websites posted by steve lowenthal on May 01, 1997 at 23:18:36: I am not at my computer to give you the exact address but search using the key word SEPTA. This site has subway, trolley, and Regional Rail. Del has its own site. I think you use the key word DART. If this is not enough re-post and I will look into further.

Thread title: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters (754714)
Started on Thu May 1 23:25:43 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters
Message Number: 754714
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Thu May 1 23:25:43 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses!! posted by steve lowenthal on May 01, 1997 at 23:11:50: looking for roster info about the articulated bus,,including fleet numbers,,,mgfr,,date,,numbers of vehicles,,exact model number
- Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters
- Message Number: 754731
- Posted by: trolleybus
- Date: Fri May 2 14:39:51 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters posted by steve lowenthal on May 01, 1997 at 23:25:43: they are made by new lyer industries of canada. they are final assembly inthe us so ny transit says they are buying american.numbers will be 1001-1070.they will all be assigned to kingsbridge depot in the bronx
  - Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters
  - Message Number: 754732
  - Posted by: trolleybus
  - Date: Fri May 2 14:55:16 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters posted by trolleybus on May 02, 1997 at 14:39:51: new flyer industries of canada is the manufacturer.
    - Subject: Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters
    - Message Number: 754805
    - Posted by: Philip Nasadowski
    - Date: Tue May 6 16:49:48 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: NYCT Articulated Buses rosters posted by trolleybus on May 02, 1997 at 14:39:51: *sigh* (again) Of course they are buying American - last time I checked, Canada was STILL part of North America. Heck - they'd STILL be buying "Amrican" if they were made in Mexico! Please people - if you mean "Made in the US", say it - there's more to America than just "US"!

Thread title: Keranu's "numerous questions" #s 21 and 23 (754716)
Started on Thu May 1 23:52:29 1997, by Peter Rosa

Subject: Keranu's "numerous questions" #s 21 and 23
Message Number: 754716
Posted by: Peter Rosa
Date: Thu May 1 23:52:29 1997

Re Question 21 (ridership on the L) - While the L has no express service, it nevertheless seems to have fairly decent ridership numbers. That's probably because it's the only line serving many parts of Brooklyn. In addition, it provides some useful connections in Manhattan. Re Question 23 (Broad Street) - This station is indeed closed on weekends, when the J terminates at Chambers Street. On weekends, the Z doesn't run at all and the M operates only as a shuttle in Queens and Brooklyn. Obstensibly, there's no weekend service to Broad Street because the area is relatively empty on weekends and there are other stations in the immediate vicinity. According to a discussion some time ago on the nyc.transit newsgroup, the *real* reason for closing the station is that the TA thereby can avoid having to staff a nearby tower. I don't have any independent knowledge of that, however. An interesting question is whether increased residential development in the financial district will someday make it necessary to open Broad Street on weekends.
- Subject: Re: Keranu's "numerous questions" #s 21 and 23
- Message Number: 754837
- Posted by: Roger Leonard
- Date: Thu May 8 03:13:05 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Keranu's "numerous questions" #s 21 and 23 posted by Peter Rosa on May 01, 1997 at 23:52:29: 5-8-97 Hi Peter! You posed an interesting question about weekend service to Broad Street with the attempted residential boom that's supposed to sweep the Wall Street area. I work in same and for the life of me I can't see how anyone would want to live there, the area is just so bland. But the opening of weekend service would certainly be welcomed by those hearty souls (or duressed) that work on Saturdays and Sundays. Thank heaven I'm not one of them!

Thread title: So That's The Difference. (754717)
Started on Fri May 2 01:31:59 1997, by Steve

Subject: So That's The Difference.
Message Number: 754717
Posted by: Steve
Date: Fri May 2 01:31:59 1997

In Reply to: [6]please answer this question in as much detail as possible including historical and technical stuff please posted by Lefty on May 01, 1997 at 17:47:25:
- Subject: So That's The Difference.
- Message Number: 754718
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Fri May 2 01:37:19 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]please answer this question in as much detail as possible including historical and technical stuff please posted by Lefty on May 01, 1997 at 17:47:25: The difference between the IRT (Interborough Rapid Tranit) and the BMT Brooklyn Manhattan Transit IRT Cars are smaller than BMT cars Length IRT = 50' 1/2" BMT = 60' or 75' Width IRT = 8' 6" BMT = 10' IRT cars have their tripcock (emergency brake actuators) under the Train Operator's cab while BMT/IND cars have it on the side opposite the Train Operators position

Thread title: Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers (754724)
Started on Fri May 2 10:21:24 1997, by Dan Lawrence

Subject: Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers
Message Number: 754724
Posted by: Dan Lawrence
Date: Fri May 2 10:21:24 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? posted by Wayne Johnson on April 29, 1997 at 09:40:44: The DC Route numbering system (old DC/Capital Transit) is easy if you know the system: Numbered routes (40/42, 50/54, 20, 30 etc.) are (ex) streetcar lines (20-Cabin John; 30-Wisconsin Avenue; 50/54-14th Street). Lines with letters/numbers are (ugh)bus lines. The suburban bus lines were integrated into this system, but I'm not totally sure how. WMATA has expanded the numbering system since takeing the systems over, but the basics are the same.
- Subject: Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers
- Message Number: 754921
- Posted by: Mark Del Monte
- Date: Mon May 12 22:23:37 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers posted by Dan Lawrence on May 02, 1997 at 10:21:24: Can anyone tell me how I can get route and schedule info for wmata preferably route maps whenever I ask WMATA for a route map of the bus and subway system all I get is one of the subway
  - Subject: Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers
  - Message Number: 754930
  - Posted by: Mark Greenwald
  - Date: Tue May 13 20:13:40 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Selling Old Rolling Stock to Other Agencies? /DC Route Numbers posted by Mark Del Monte on May 12, 1997 at 22:23:37: You do know the web site for the WMATA? It's www.wmata.com Maybe you can find what you're looking for there

Thread title: R110B Test Train (754725)
Started on Fri May 2 11:02:33 1997, by Charles

Subject: R110B Test Train
Message Number: 754725
Posted by: Charles
Date: Fri May 2 11:02:33 1997

I believe that the R110B's have been on the "A" long enough. It is time for the Transit authority to send them to another line for the Continued revenue testing The "Q" has the conductors boards for the train. I am well aware that the train has been used on the "C" after the technical difficulties with it. The train can also be used on the "E". I personally would like to see the train go into revenue testing on the "B".

Thread title: Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules???????? (754729)
Started on Fri May 2 13:11:00 1997, by Gerry O'Regan

Subject: Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules????????
Message Number: 754729
Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
Date: Fri May 2 13:11:00 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules???????? posted by John on May 01, 1997 at 21:28:46: Yes, except for the 'A' they are even available on the MTA website. BUT they are vague: "Then every 8 or 12 minutes" from the Saturday "4" schedule. 8 or 12 minutes is a big difference if you are trying to make a connection to MNCR at GCT!
- Subject: Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules????????
- Message Number: 754743
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Sat May 3 13:21:21 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Why Can't we get Time schedules???????? posted by BIG Dave on April 30, 1997 at 13:59:18: You can get schedules of virtually every line. Dispatchers have them. However, to what end? With headways as close as 3 minutes apart, what would it mean if you got on the 7:27 A 207th St. or the 7:24 A 207th St. ? Would it make that much difference. Besides, unless you ask the train operator or conductor how would you know? If you got onto a south-bound A at 59th St., would you care if it was the 7:27 A 207th St on time or the 7:24 A 207th St. running 3 minutes late? What happens when the the dispatcher has to adjust his headway because no trains are coming uptown due to a bridge opening in the Rockaways and he decides to put out 8 trains in a half hour instead of 10? Now the trains are 4 minutes apart instead of 3. Or what happens when you get a sick passenger at Jay St. and there are no trains coming northbound for a half hour? Or when the F trains are routed over the G line due to a police investigation? What happens to your timetables then? Schedules are important if the headways are 15 minutes, 30 minutes or an hour like metro-north or the LIRR. When the headways are under 10 minutes like they are on the subways (at most times) the schedules are only important to the dispatchers to keep track of the crews and equipment. If you are cutting your personal schedule so close that you need a timetable for the subways, shame on you...
  - Subject: Why Can't we get Time schedules????????
  - Message Number: 754659
  - Posted by: BIG Dave
  - Date: Wed Apr 30 13:59:18 1997
    
    LIRR has em and so does Metro North, All a part of the Good 'ole MTA. Why not The Subway? What is the MTA trying to hide? (we know they're always late so it wouldn't hurt) If I knew a train would be comming at a certain time (like the LIRR) I'd be there and NEVER BE LATE FOR WORK (grin). The Buses have it but they don't post it. Ask a Bus driver when you will arive at an intersection and he'll give you the approx. time. What can be done? Also What can be done about service outages? If the transit authority can't have my train run because of whatever, and I'm stranded in a station for more than a 1/2 hour I should get my money back! right? I pay $1.50 for a service that wasn't performed as expected, shouldn't I deserve a refund? I think so... Thanks for any help given
    - Subject: Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules????????
    - Message Number: 754675
    - Posted by: David Pirmann
    - Date: Wed Apr 30 17:00:18 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Why Can't we get Time schedules???????? posted by BIG Dave on April 30, 1997 at 13:59:18: Well, you just haven't looked hard enough. Timetables are available for some of the routes. I've got ones for the A Rockaway Express, B, C, D/Q, L, M, N, Franklin Shuttle, 63rd Street B/F/Q service, 1/9, 7, and SIRT. They list actual departure times from the terminals and approximate times of arriving at intermediate points. There are probably more available than this. You can get them from the transit information centers (Grand Central, Penn Station museum gift shops), from various stations along the lines, and by writing to MTA New York City Transit Customer Assistance Room 875 370 Jay Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 As for refund complaints, you're probably better off taking that up directly with Customer Service. 718-330-1234. If a service is cancelled or delayed sometimes you can get a voucher from the token booth clerk that will let you board a bus in the area instead. --Dave
      - Subject: Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules????????
      - Message Number: 754707
      - Posted by: John
      - Date: Thu May 1 21:28:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Why Can't we get Time schedules???????? posted by David Pirmann on April 30, 1997 at 17:00:18: If I'm not mistaking, I think timetables are available for all the subway lines.

Thread title: Re: BUSES (754730)
Started on Fri May 2 14:21:36 1997, by wayne johnson

Subject: Re: BUSES
Message Number: 754730
Posted by: wayne johnson
Date: Fri May 2 14:21:36 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: BUSES posted by Wayne Johnson on May 01, 1997 at 15:36:01: they are tmcs bus roadeo is 5-17&5-18 at flushing meadow park
- Subject: BUSES
- Message Number: 754666
- Posted by: TROLLEYBUS
- Date: Wed Apr 30 14:50:40 1997
  
  ANYTHING YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT BUSES ASK ME
  - Subject: Re: BUSES
  - Message Number: 754673
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Wed Apr 30 16:38:46 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]BUSES posted by TROLLEYBUS on April 30, 1997 at 14:50:40: Thanks Trolleybus, Much of the info you posted I already knew (I'm a native NY'er). I recently moved to Maryland and it's difficult to keep track of buses' assigned depots as I only get to NYC about once every 2 to 3 weeks. Do you have any info. about the buses and their assignments - I realize that such a document would change often, as the NYCT(A) transfers buses rather often.
    - Subject: Re: BUSES
    - Message Number: 754693
    - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
    - Date: Thu May 1 12:42:14 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]BUSES posted by TROLLEYBUS on April 30, 1997 at 14:50:40: Last year (in May)the TA had their museum fleet of buses on display outside the Transit Exibit. Do you know if and when it's being held this year? Also, the date and location of their bus Road-eo. Thanks in advance...
      - Subject: Re: BUSES
      - Message Number: 754697
      - Posted by: trolleybus
      - Date: Thu May 1 14:58:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: BUSES posted by Wayne Johnson on May 01, 1997 at 12:42:14: roadeo flushing meadow park 5-18-97 no date for bus festival so far
        
        Subject: Re: BUSES
        Message Number: 754698
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Thu May 1 15:36:01 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]BUSES posted by TROLLEYBUS on April 30, 1997 at 14:50:40: I thought that the 4300-4500 series RTS were the first and only RTS-II-06 models that NYCTA had purchased from GM before TMC took over.

Thread title: Re: Malbone Street Still Exists? (754736)
Started on Fri May 2 18:46:03 1997, by David Pirmann

Subject: Re: Malbone Street Still Exists?
Message Number: 754736
Posted by: David Pirmann
Date: Fri May 2 18:46:03 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: please answer this question in as much detail as possible including historical and technical stuff please posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 02, 1997 at 13:01:47: A recent browse thru Street Atlas USA (and a Hagstrom Atlas) shows there is a short block of street still called Malbone Street. It is slightly east of the President Street station on the IRT. Anyone know if it's actually signed? --Dave
- Subject: Re: Malbone Street Still Exists?
- Message Number: 754737
- Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
- Date: Fri May 2 23:02:59 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Malbone Street Still Exists? posted by David Pirmann on May 02, 1997 at 18:46:03: That's interesting, Dave. I'll have to look at my street map. Does it line up with Empire Blvd. in any way??
  - Subject: Re: Malbone Street Still Exists?
  - Message Number: 754739
  - Posted by: Mark Greenwald
  - Date: Sat May 3 11:07:01 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Malbone Street Still Exists? posted by David Pirmann on May 02, 1997 at 18:46:03: The Malbone Street that was the scene of the crash was changed to Empire Bulevard after the wreck-According to the book "Uptown-Downtown"
    - Subject: Re: Malbone Street Still Exists?
    - Message Number: 754747
    - Posted by: Sean Goldman
    - Date: Sat May 3 16:22:18 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Malbone Street Still Exists? posted by David Pirmann on May 02, 1997 at 18:46:03: Malbone Street is on Mapquest (www.mapquest.com) also. It's within the block formed by Empire Blvd. to the South, Montgomery St. to the North, Nostrand Ave. to the West, and New York Ave. to the East, but it's only a half a block long. One end is on New York Ave., and the other end is on Clove St., which isn't much bigger than Malbone, ending on Empire and also near the corner of Nostrand and Montgomery. The fact that the name wasn't completely wiped out seems to indicate that the people didn't want to forget whoever Malbone was after the crash. Anyone know who he is?

Thread title: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? (754740)
Started on Sat May 3 12:21:31 1997, by Randall Raymond

Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
Message Number: 754740
Posted by: Randall Raymond
Date: Sat May 3 12:21:31 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Peter Rosa on April 27, 1997 at 16:59:41: What the system needs is a connection between the Queens Plaza and Queensborough Plaza stations...
- Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
- Message Number: 754851
- Posted by: John
- Date: Thu May 8 23:36:54 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Randall Raymond on May 03, 1997 at 12:21:31: THat's trival. What NYC needs is a)LIRR to East Side (not nessarily GCT) b)2nd Av Subway c)Service to Javits Center d)Direct subway to LGA and JFK
  - Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
  - Message Number: 754869
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Fri May 9 23:06:17 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by John on May 08, 1997 at 23:36:54: AND a subway link to Staten Island.
    - Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
    - Message Number: 755008
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Fri May 23 21:54:07 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Randolph on May 17, 1997 at 23:55:53: So then if that's the case, it looks like we have to replace every single bus line in New York City with a subway line.
      - Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
      - Message Number: 753930
      - Posted by: Randolph
      - Date: Sat May 17 23:55:53 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by John on May 09, 1997 at 23:06:17: What are the most popular bus routes? That's where subways should be built.
        
        Subject: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754309
        Posted by: Bob Andersen
        Date: Fri Apr 11 21:36:42 1997
        
        I'd vote for rail links to LaGuardia and JFK Airports. What's your opinion?
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754310
        Posted by: Peter Rosa
        Date: Fri Apr 11 22:04:50 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Bob Andersen on April 11, 1997 at 21:36:42: Airport links would be nice, but I'd have to vote for an additional line on the East Side of Manhattan, either the Second Avenue line or something else, to take some of the burden off of the Lexington lines. Another item on my wish list would be a major upgrading of the signalling system, that might allow for reduced rush-hour headways.
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754314
        Posted by: Mark Greenwald
        Date: Sat Apr 12 10:02:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Bob Andersen on April 11, 1997 at 21:36:42: How about the leg that was supposed to be accross the GW Bridge into Jersey---talk about a relief on the bridge & the tunnels....Whew!!!
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754331
        Posted by: Philip I wish this 64 meg DIMM would work dammit
        Date: Mon Jun 16 21:37:45 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Peter Rosa on April 11, 1997 at 22:04:50: I'd vote for extending the 7 line down to Penn, if there's one thing the system is missing the most, it's going between GCT and Penn without any transfers. After that, another East side line would be nice, as would maybe a connection to Satan ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H Statan Island...
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754333
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Mon Apr 14 12:45:07 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Bob Andersen on April 11, 1997 at 21:36:42: 3 things in my opinion: - relief of the Lexington Avenue Line: creation of another trunk line down 2nd Avenue. - connecting Staten Island to the rest of the transit system - improved (more modern) signalling so NYC Transit doesn't have to slow down car acceleration to compensate for the antiquated signalling system currently in place
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754350
        Posted by: Julio Perez
        Date: Tue Apr 15 16:38:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Bob Andersen on April 11, 1997 at 21:36:42: The rail links to LGA and JFK are _very_ good ideas. If only the Port Authority of NY & NJ can wake up and smell the coffee by letting the MTA build a spur that would lead _directly_ into the respective terminals, and _not_ go with a light rail solution between JFK and the A line as has been suggested elsewhere. The people from the PA must be drinking water straight from the Hudson and have been cooped up too long in the city. A visit to Atlanta is in order for them. There, you pick up your luggage after landing at Hartsfield Airport, take a MARTA train, and twenty minutes later, BOOM! you're in downtown Atlanta. WITHOUT the use of a light rail connection, mind you.
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754351
        Posted by: Tracy Moskaloff
        Date: Wed Apr 16 15:00:19 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Bob Andersen on April 11, 1997 at 21:36:42: More like we need a rail to Coney Island!! No, I am just joking. I think we need rail links to the airports also. Especially, EWR. Newark International. Newark is starting to take alot of our eastbound planes from Seattle, San Fran, L.A. I fly from Seattle, Washington to NYC every 2-3 weeks.
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754497
        Posted by: Tony DeSantis
        Date: Wed Apr 23 13:26:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Philip I wish this 64 meg DIMM would work dammit Nasadowski on April 14, 1997 at 11:56:36: I would like to see the Route 3 extended into the Bronx and then run along the Metro-North line to the Zoo. This would take some pressure off the D and 4 routes. I have heard talk of extending the Route 7 to the Javits Center. I would suggest a further extension to the New York Central Elevated Line, station would be at 28th, 23rd and 18th. Then the line would descend into a tunnel at 14th, where it would turn into the Canarsie line. I would designate it the "L" because it runs as an elevated in the three boroughs it serves. I would also like to see Rockaway line given back to the LIRR via Rego Park. In exchange, I'd extend the Flushing Line almost to Nassau County and cancel the Port Washington Line. In that case, I'd relocated most of the Flushing Line to the LIRR ROW and tear down the el.
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754525
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Thu Apr 24 20:49:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Tony DeSantis on April 23, 1997 at 13:26:33: The D and 4 are overcrowded? I thought the opposite was closer to the truth -- the two lines are creating too much redundancy for that area. I've heard that the MTA would love to drop the elevated portion of the 4, if it didn't need the yard at Jerome Avenue. The LIRR going back to the Rockaways? Interesting idea, but first clean up a lot of those neighborhoods in the area! Plus, a lot of people might not like the more expensive LIRR replacing the TA, even if it is faster.
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754541
        Posted by: Julio Perez
        Date: Fri Apr 25 13:47:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Tony DeSantis on April 23, 1997 at 13:26:33: You probably want to keep the Flushing line where it is. People north of Roosevelt Avenue would have to walk an additional 4-5 blocks to catch an LIRR train... assuming platforms are built along the 44th/45th Avenue ROW. If anything should be done in Queens to the 7 Flushing line, it's to extend it past Main Street, perhaps traveling beneath Northern Boulevard east of Main. In Manhattan, I've heard _any_ extension to the 7 west of Times Square is next to impossible, for there is some sort of building that's an obstacle in the tunnels west of the station (folks, please correct me if I'm wrong, I read that in the nyc.transit newsgroup).
        
        Subject: Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit?
        Message Number: 754560
        Posted by: Peter Rosa
        Date: Sun Apr 27 16:59:41 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by Julio Perez on April 25, 1997 at 13:47:46: [re extending 7 train west from Times Square] The main obstacle blocking any westward extension of the 7 train is the lower level of the 42nd/8th IND station - in fact, the current tunnel for the 7 runs almost right to the wall of the lower level. As the lower level has been abandoned for years, and AFAIK there are no plans to resume use, removing it for a 7 extension shouldn't be too much of an obstacle. I have heard that there are some underground fuel tanks at the Port Authority Bus Terminal that may also stand in the way of a 7 extension. I'm not certain of this, however.

Thread title: Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza (754741)
Started on Sat May 3 12:31:06 1997, by Randall

Subject: Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza
Message Number: 754741
Posted by: Randall
Date: Sat May 3 12:31:06 1997

Are then any plans to make a connection between the two stations? Seems it would make sense.
- Subject: Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza
- Message Number: 754742
- Posted by: Randall
- Date: Sat May 3 12:39:17 1997
  
  Are then any plans to make a connection between the two stations? Seems it would make sense.
  - Subject: Re: Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza
  - Message Number: 754746
  - Posted by: Peter Rosa
  - Date: Sat May 3 15:09:37 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza posted by Randall on May 03, 1997 at 12:39:17: The main obstacle to connecting the two stations is that Queensboro Plaza is elevated, while Queens Plaza is underground. That would make a physical connection costly. An alternative would be to allow free transfers using MetroCard - riders could swipe their cards through a special reader when leaving one station, which would allow free entry (time limited, if necessary) at the other.
    - Subject: Re: Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza
    - Message Number: 754750
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Sat May 3 19:25:40 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza posted by Randall on May 03, 1997 at 12:39:17: Of course cost and geography are the greatest obstacles to such a venture. The IND at Queens Plaza passes several under the IRT about 100 to 200 feet away from the station. This would mean much more than simply adding an escallator or a stairway. The alternative of a metro-card transfer is an excellent idea. Finally, the cost of such a project would never be approved because it duplicates a virtually identical connection at 74th St. on the 7 line and Roosevelt Ave. on the IND. It would also duplicate another free transfer point at 42nd St.

Thread title: Secaucus Connection (754748)
Started on Sat May 3 17:12:56 1997, by Sean Goldman

Subject: Secaucus Connection
Message Number: 754748
Posted by: Sean Goldman
Date: Sat May 3 17:12:56 1997

Has anyone heard any news on the progress of the Secaucus Connection, the project that will bring the NJ Transit Main and Bergen Co. lines and the Metro-North Port Jervis and Pascack Valley lines into Penn Station through a connection with the Amtrak main line?
- Subject: Re: Secaucus Connection
- Message Number: 754808
- Posted by: MJS
- Date: Tue May 6 19:35:13 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Secaucus Connection posted by Sean Goldman on May 03, 1997 at 17:12:56: There will be no such thing! What will be is a transfer station so people can make the transfer between the northern lines and the trains to penn.

Thread title: Chicago Subway's and El's (754749)
Started on Sat May 3 19:13:19 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: Chicago Subway's and El's
Message Number: 754749
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Sat May 3 19:13:19 1997

What kind of Subway/Elevated cars operate in Chicago Illinois? Also, is Chicago the only city that has Elevated tracks in it's main city downtown area? Please E-mail me!
- Subject: Re: Chicago Subway's and El's
- Message Number: 754751
- Posted by: Sam Parker
- Date: Sat May 3 20:13:02 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Chicago Subway's and El's posted by Brian Jakosz on May 03, 1997 at 19:13:19: Are there any other resources for information re: The CTA and The "El"? Does The C.E.R.A. have a website? If not, why not? Is the South Central section of the "official CTA Rapid Transit map ever going to be completed? Thanks for any information you can provide.
  - Subject: Re: Chicago Subway's and El's
  - Message Number: 754752
  - Posted by: Sam Parker
  - Date: Sat May 3 20:13:27 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Chicago Subway's and El's posted by Brian Jakosz on May 03, 1997 at 19:13:19: Are there any other resources for information re: The CTA and The "El"? Does The C.E.R.A. have a website? If not, why not? Is the South Central section of the "official" CTA Rapid Transit map ever going to be completed? Thanks for any information you can provide.
    - Subject: Re: Chicago Subway's and El's
    - Message Number: 754754
    - Posted by: Bryan Layne
    - Date: Sat May 3 23:25:14 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Chicago Subway's and El's posted by Brian Jakosz on May 03, 1997 at 19:13:19: This is the CTA's Rapid Transit car roster: numbers builder built routes assigned 2201-2350 Budd 1969-70 Blue 2401-2600 Boeing-Vertol 1976-78 Red,Green 2601-3200 Budd 1981-87 Red,Blue,Purple 3201-3440 Morrison-Knudsen 1992-94 Brown,Orange 3441-3456 Morrison-Knudsen 1993-94 Yellow lines: Congress/Douglas/O'Hare(Blue) Howard/Dan Ryan(Red) Lake/Englewood/Jackson Park(Green) Linden Shuttle,"Evanston Express"(Purple) Ravenswood(Brown) Midway(Orange) "Skokie Swift"(Yellow)(This line uses pantographs) Also,I think Chicago and Boston are the only two cities with elevated structures downtown. I got this information from the Chicago Transit Enthusiasts Page at [7] http://members.aol.com/chictafan/maincta.html I know my CTA so if you have any other questions e-mail me or Bill Vandervoort at the Chicago Transit/Metra Railfan Page.

Thread title: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences (754753)
Started on Sat May 3 23:16:00 1997, by Dan Schwartz

Subject: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
Message Number: 754753
Posted by: Dan Schwartz
Date: Sat May 3 23:16:00 1997

In Reply to: [6]So That's The Difference. posted by Steve on May 02, 1997 at 01:37:19: The difference in width is the main one that most of us know, the figures I have seen are 8' 10" (not 8' 6") vs. 10'. The part about the tripcock is interesting; if that is true, then how is it that IRT cars are often run as work trains on BMT/IND lines? Are those trains not subject to having their brakes tripped by red signals? Also, how is it possible that the IRT and BMT used to run "joint operations" on the Astoria and Flushing lines? Trains of BMT-width cars couldn't operate at platforms designed for IRT-width cars, and IRT-width cars couldn't safely stop at platforms designed for BMT-width cars. If, as I believe, the BMT operated narrow IRT-width cars on those lines, where did they stop in Manhattan?
- Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
- Message Number: 754755
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Sun May 4 00:05:41 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Dan Schwartz on May 03, 1997 at 23:16:00: Good questions: First, all work motors have 4 trip cocks. The active ones are selected manually using a diversion valve. They are marked for IND/BMT or IRT. The crew set them according to where the equipment is operated. Second, the only place where the BMT operated 'narrow equipment' that I know about was the Flushing Line. There the BMT and IRT operated joint service into the 40s. Oddly enough, the IRT cars on the #7 line still have their trip cocks where BMT/IND cars do. This is necessary because the R-33s and R-36s of the #7 line go through heavy repairs in Coney Island and operate over BMT tracks from Queensboro Plaza to get there. The # 7 line is also, therefore, the only IRT line to use BMT/IND signals.
  - Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
  - Message Number: 754758
  - Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
  - Date: Sun May 4 13:55:48 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Steve on May 04, 1997 at 00:05:41: Prior to unification there were all sorts of places where the BMT operated narrow cars in addition to the two lines in Queens. The most interesting was Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn which was also the most recent. North of Broadway, Myrtle El cars shared trackage with subway cars from Nassau St. The latter were 10 feet wide, so the conductors had to yell: "Mind the gap, please" According to another post here this also happened on the Culver Line in the pre-IND days. The route split between the 4th Av. Subway and the 5th Av. El to Brooklyn Bridge. Since the West End Line shared the connections at 9th Av., this route could have also had joint service. Of course today, where there are so many excuses to litigate...
    - Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
    - Message Number: 754760
    - Posted by: Lefty
    - Date: Sun May 4 16:38:34 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 04, 1997 at 13:55:48: is there actually a difference between the width between the rails on the tracks?
      - Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
      - Message Number: 754761
      - Posted by: Dan Schwartz
      - Date: Sun May 4 18:23:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Lefty on May 04, 1997 at 16:38:34: Is there actually a difference between the width between the rails on the tracks? No, obviously not, otherwise IRT cars couldn't operate as work trains over IND/BMT tracks, and couldn't go to the Coney Island shops for repairs. Actually, there are several yards (Jerome/Concourse in the Bronx, and 207th St. in Manhattan) which have connections to both IRT and IND passenger-service tracks; it is not unusual to see IRT #4 trains (R-62's) and "D" trains (R-68(a?)'s) sitting next to each other in the Concourse yard, which is visible from the Bedford Park station on the #4. I am surprised to hear that the Myrtle Avenue line had narrow trains stopping at platforms that accomadated wider trains as recently as the early 1970's. I guess the urge to sue wasn't quite as widespread then as it is now, but we were surely already heading that way. Did the BMT Broadway (Manhattan) line also have narrow cars from the Flushing and Astoria lines (the so-called "Q" cars) stopping and leaving wide gaps prior to 1949? I guess it must have, but it seems to me that it must have been awfully dangerous at crowded, narrow platforms like the one at Lexington Ave./59th (really 60th) Street. Does anyone know how far south these trains went?
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754764
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Sun May 4 20:02:19 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Dan Schwartz on May 04, 1997 at 18:23:43: why doesnt the city fix up the platforms so that all the stations follow one standard.. then the IRT could use the bigger cars and they wont have to make different orders for new cars for the BMT and IRT. i go to school right next to the #4 yard at the bedford park station on the 4.. the work cars there do look like theyre r62's from the IRT.. theres another yard however directly north of that one which houses the cars from the #4 line and theyre all IRT cars in there.. lots of the red cars..
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754765
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Sun May 4 20:22:08 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Dan Schwartz on May 04, 1997 at 18:23:43: In general the BMT's wooden elevated cars were not allowed to enter the subways. Thus the Queensboro Plaza setup had subway trains from Broadway entering on the upper level, discharging their passengers for an across the platform transfer to an el train, then pulling into a pocket track to change ends and return to the lower level where they would await the arrival of an el train for the return trip. The el trains had their own pocket track on the west side of the station. El trains going to the yards were towed dead through the subway in the dark of night behind 'drill motors'. Their third rail shoes could not reach the third rail on the subway tracks which was lower and further out than that on the els. I'm not sure whether this applied on the IRT too, but 'Steinway' equipment was always unique due to the grades encountered anyway. Even today the R33 & 36 cars on the Flushing Line are kept separate from their brethern in the 1-6 routes, though their predecessors, the r12,14,15 series did transfer to the main lines after being replaced.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754771
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 5 01:32:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Lefty on May 04, 1997 at 20:02:19: The yard north of Concourse Yard is Jerome Yard. The work motors that look like R-62s are actually R-127s but are rarely seen in Concourse Yard.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754783
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Mon May 5 13:19:55 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Lefty on May 04, 1997 at 20:02:19: Lefty ... It's not just some IRT platforms that would need to be shaved if NYC Transit were to adopt the BMT/IND standard size car. The original IRT line tunnels would have to be enlarged to accomodate the wider equipment. This would require a huge capital expenditure by the MTA. I'd rather see this kind of expenditure used to build the 2nd Ave subway, but that's a whole different topic :-) --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754802
        Posted by: Liane Maier
        Date: Tue May 6 14:24:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Steve on May 05, 1997 at 01:32:26: Hi! I�m from Austria and I�m an "ilegal Graffithy - Sprayer". That brought me a lot of problems with the Police! Der volle Schei�!
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754813
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue May 6 20:01:31 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Liane Maier on May 06, 1997 at 14:24:05: Greetings from NY City. As a person who deals with the daily realities of graffiti & vandalism I can only pity you and hope that you wake up and grow up.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754814
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Tue May 6 22:41:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 04, 1997 at 20:22:08: The R33 and R36 cars are not always confined to the Flushing line -- it's not that unusual to see them on the 6, as well as regular IRT stock on the Flushing. Which begs the question: shouldn't this be something of a safety problem? Do they make sure that the respective rolling stock, if switched, is never used at the ends of the train? I seem to remember a time (during the late 80's?) when the 1 or 6 had a full train of Flushing cars running on occasion.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754818
        Posted by: Julio Perez
        Date: Wed May 7 09:24:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Lefty on May 04, 1997 at 20:02:19: The "fix up" you are proposing not only involves fixing up the stations, but some tracks as well. Take the Flushing line (7), for example. It has some nearly 90-degree curves traveling westbound (into Manhattan) between Queensboro Plaza and Hunters Point Boulevard (about 3 sets, if I'm not mistaken), and another sharp curve prior to entering Times Square. Although I haven't traveled much of the rest of the IRT (short of the 1 between South Ferry and 225th Street), I'm pretty sure curves such as the ones I described on the 7 are present elsewhere on the IRT.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754827
        Posted by: John
        Date: Wed May 7 16:48:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Julio Perez on May 07, 1997 at 09:24:05: There is also a sharp curve in the Bronx on the 2/5 line on the ascent from the tunnel onto the elevated line. Also, on the BMT N and R line, there is a sharp curve between Cortlandt St and City Hall, and also between Court Street and Lawrence St.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences
        Message Number: 754902
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 12 00:12:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT vs. BMT/IND Differences posted by Andrew Huie on May 06, 1997 at 22:41:16: Actually, not all R-33s and R-36s are created equal. The original 33s and 36s on the 4 & 6 line have IRT trip cock configuration whire the 33s and 36s on the #7 line have IND trip cock configurations. Aside from that, there are some cosmetic differences. First, the #7 line cars have 'picture windows' while the cars on the 4 & 6 lines have 'drop sash' windows. The Flushing cars were ordered with the 'new' picture windows because the cars offered tourists their first look at the NY Worlds Fair fo rwhich the cars were bought. To answer your question more directly, if a Flushing line car happened to stray onto the #4 line (and since there is no direct connection, this is highly unlikely) the signal protection would be reduced by only 51 feet, the length of the first car since there is also a trip cock on the opposite side of the #2 truck.

Thread title: track maps amtrak newark station (754757)
Started on Sun May 4 00:20:21 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: track maps amtrak newark station
Message Number: 754757
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Sun May 4 00:20:21 1997

does anyone have new track maps of the amtrak newark station at the airport,monorail connection

Thread title: Playing Music in the NY subway (754759)
Started on Sun May 4 14:39:31 1997, by Eric

Subject: Playing Music in the NY subway
Message Number: 754759
Posted by: Eric
Date: Sun May 4 14:39:31 1997

How do you get to be one of the "legit" subway musicians... the one's with those orange banners that say something like, " New York Music Underground"? I've heard that there is some kind of audition. Any one know when, or where? Also, I've heard they're the only musicians who can legally use amplification. Love to get some leads on this stuff.
- Subject: Re: Playing Music in the NY subway
- Message Number: 754918
- Posted by: Jamie Propp
- Date: Mon May 12 20:37:35 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Playing Music in the NY subway posted by Eric on May 04, 1997 at 14:39:31: Music Under New York, a division of MTA's Arts for Transit program holds annual auditions in Grand Central Terminal. Lucky fo you, the auditions are in late May/early June, so if you call Tim & Gina Higginbotham at (212) 362-3830 ASAP, they will send you audition information. BTW, I am the poducer of a record called SUBPLAY, whcih features performances by 35 NYC subway musicians!

Thread title: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE (754767)
Started on Sun May 4 21:07:56 1997, by Warren

Subject: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE
Message Number: 754767
Posted by: Warren
Date: Sun May 4 21:07:56 1997

i AM THE CO-CHAIR OF THE ROCKAWAY TRANSIT COALITION. OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE MTA REACTIVATE THE OLD ROCKAWAY BEACH LINE. oUR PROPOSAL IS TO REOPEN THE OLD ROCKAWAY BEACH LINE. THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE USED AS FOLLOWS 1 CONNECT KENNEDY AIRPORT TO MANHATTAN THROUGH WHITE POT JUNCTION TO PENN STATION. WHEN 2 RE-ESTABLISH THE OLD ROCKAWAY LINE TO FAR ROCKAWAY AND ROCKAWAY PARK TO MANHATTAN. 3 CONNECT KENNEDY AIRPORT TO LA GUARDIA AIRPORT THROUGH EXISTING LIRR TRACKS THAN CONNECTING TO THE N LINE AND CONTINUE TO LA GUARDIA. WE ARE LOOKING FOR HELP FROM THOSE WHO LIVE ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY. FOREST HILLS, GLENDALE, RICHMOND HILLS AND OZONE PARK. WE WILL SEND OUR PROPOSAL VIA SNAIL MAIL. EMAIL US OR SEND A LETTER WITH YOUR ADDRESS TO THE ROCKAWAY TRANSIT COAITION
- Subject: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE
- Message Number: 754768
- Posted by: Warren
- Date: Sun May 4 21:13:08 1997
  
  I AM THE CO-CHAIR OF THE ROCKAWAY TRANSIT COALITION. OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE THE MTA REACTIVATE THE OLD ROCKAWAY BEACH LINE. OUR PROPOSAL IS TO REOPEN THE OLD ROCKAWAY BEACH LINE. THE RIGHT OF WAY WOULD BE USED AS FOLLOWS 1 CONNECT KENNEDY AIRPORT TO MANHATTAN THROUGH WHITE POT JUNCTION TO PENN STATION. WHEN 2 RE-ESTABLISH THE OLD ROCKAWAY LINE TO FAR ROCKAWAY AND ROCKAWAY PARK TO MANHATTAN. 3 CONNECT KENNEDY AIRPORT TO LA GUARDIA AIRPORT THROUGH EXISTING LIRR TRACKS THAN CONNECTING TO THE N LINE AND CONTINUE TO LA GUARDIA. WE ARE LOOKING FOR HELP FROM THOSE WHO LIVE ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY. FOREST HILLS, GLENDALE, RICHMOND HILLS AND OZONE PARK. WE WILL SEND OUR PROPOSAL VIA SNAIL MAIL. EMAIL US OR SEND A LETTER WITH YOUR ADDRESS TO THE ROCKAWAY TRANSIT COAITION. ROCKAWAY TRANSIT COALITION P.O. BOX 960185 INWOOD NY 11096-0185. THE PROPOSAL WE ARE USING WAS WRITTEN BY THE COMMITTEE FOR BETTER TRANSIT.
  - Subject: Re: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE
  - Message Number: 754790
  - Posted by: Zack
  - Date: Mon May 5 21:11:56 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE posted by Warren on May 04, 1997 at 21:13:08: geez turn off your caps lock!!!!!!!!
    - Subject: Re: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE
    - Message Number: 754806
    - Posted by: Andy
    - Date: Tue May 6 17:23:15 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE posted by Warren on May 04, 1997 at 21:13:08: I am a Railroad Civil Engineering master's student, and have studied this line before. Let me point out a few things. 1) Penn Station doesn't have sufficient capacity for a new group of trains from the Rockaways. If it did, LIRR would put in more trains from distant points which they make more money on (Port Jeff, Ronkonkoma, etc.). Possibly the ever mythical 5X switch woul help solve this (as would the throughrouting ideas presented below). 2) The idea of connnecting Kennedy is an excellent one, but the all-knowing Port Authority objects. I am sure you know of their harebrained schemes. 3) A really smart connection to Kennedy would involve the following elements: a) Amtrak service from Boston via Hells Gate, and from Washington Baltimore, Philly, Newark, via Penn Sta. This could be run like Lufthansa trains to Dusseldorf and Cologne from Frankfurt. b) An extension of New Jersey Transit NEC and Midtown Direct service (thus helping eliminate the crowding problem at Penn Sta., which should be a through station) - (each half hourly). c) Service from Babylon (the Hamptons even?) and Port Jeff/ Ronkonkoma and Hicksville to Kennedy (hourly). This would result in every 15 minute service from Newark and New York, every 30 minutes from Jamaica, and every hour (or two hours given the demand) from Boston and Washington. All in all a train would be arriving and departing every 7.5 minutes. To get faster service from the Rockaways, pressure needs to be placed on the MTA to get their act together and get their track and signal in good shape along the line and also to run expresses all the time. Of course all of this would require a lot of interagency cooperation. But more agencies means more money available for the job. Another idea which just ocurred to me would be to sell the Port Authority on the idea of running Newark Airport - Kennedy shuttles. Best of Luck to you. I hope these ideas help.
      - Subject: Re: RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE
      - Message Number: 754812
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Tue May 6 19:57:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]RE ACTIVATEING THE ROCKAWAY LINE posted by Warren on May 04, 1997 at 21:13:08: If they re-build it, will they (the riders) come? Remember that the line was closed because the bridge burnt down but the LIRR had no interest in rebuilding because of low ridership. (At that time the LIRR was a profit driven organization) The current service from the Rockaways is far more utilitarian with numerous stops in downtown Brooklyn and lower Manhattan. To reopen the line through the White Pot underjump would provide riders just to alternatives, Woodside or Penn Station. I agree that the ROW should be put to use but not with service to the Rockaways. Perhaps a LRV system from JFK to LaGuardia, Manhattan and Newark could be anchored by that long dis-used line.

Thread title: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME. (754769)
Started on Sun May 4 22:48:48 1997, by John

Subject: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME.
Message Number: 754769
Posted by: John
Date: Sun May 4 22:48:48 1997

Earlier this evening, I was going home on the N train (I got on at Canal Street and was going to Court Street) and there were about 4 or 5 other people in my car. However, all of them were speaking to each other in Greek. They weren't even related because there was a couple at my end of the car, and a few others scattered around the car, and they didn't appear to know each other. Not only that, but crumpled up on a seat near me was a Greek newspaper. To top things off, the woman sitting across from me looked exactly like my girlfriend, who is also Greek. I concluded that these people must have been coming from Astoria, which has a large Greek population.
- Subject: Re: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME.
- Message Number: 754770
- Posted by: Jim
- Date: Mon May 5 01:24:20 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME. posted by John on May 04, 1997 at 22:48:48: And your point is???
  - Subject: Re: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME.
  - Message Number: 754772
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Mon May 5 05:51:51 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME. posted by Jim on May 05, 1997 at 01:24:20: Sheer entertainment, my friend. Sheer entertainment.

Thread title: graff. (754774)
Started on Mon May 5 08:38:42 1997, by johan.mattsson

Subject: graff.
Message Number: 754774
Posted by: johan.mattsson
Date: Mon May 5 08:38:42 1997

bomba hela j�VLA new york!!!!

Thread title: Car Equipment Diagrams (754775)
Started on Mon May 5 09:07:53 1997, by Charles

Subject: Car Equipment Diagrams
Message Number: 754775
Posted by: Charles
Date: Mon May 5 09:07:53 1997

I would like to know if there is any way to get copies of diagrams of Non Revenue equipment for NYCT. I know that the revenue equipment diagrams are in the book New York City subway cars. Is there a department in NYCT that I can Contact? or doest the transit museum have this type of thing?
- Subject: Car Equipment Diagrams
- Message Number: 754776
- Posted by: Charles
- Date: Mon May 5 09:08:20 1997
  
  I would like to know if there is any way to get copies of diagrams of Non Revenue equipment for NYCT. I know that the revenue equipment diagrams are in the book New York City subway cars. Is there a department in NYCT that I can Contact? or doest the transit museum have this type of thing?
  - Subject: Re: Car Equipment Diagrams
  - Message Number: 754779
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Mon May 5 10:04:02 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Car Equipment Diagrams posted by Charles on May 05, 1997 at 09:08:20: There are very few copies of that book around and nobody I know is going to give up their copy. Is there a particular piece of equipment that you are interested in or is it just that you'd like a copy of the book?
    - Subject: Re: Car Equipment Diagrams
    - Message Number: 754807
    - Posted by: todd minsk
    - Date: Tue May 6 19:17:31 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Car Equipment Diagrams posted by Charles on May 05, 1997 at 09:07:53: The NY Transit Archives at 130 Livingston Street has a diagram book that covers both the revenue and non-revenue equipment, though there are some omissions. During a recent visit I was able to purchase photocopies of parts of it.
      - Subject: Re: Car Equipment Diagrams
      - Message Number: 754882
      - Posted by: Pat Villani
      - Date: Sat May 10 18:57:09 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Car Equipment Diagrams posted by todd minsk on May 06, 1997 at 19:17:31: I recently spoke to a woman at the archives who told me that this information was _not_ available, but that a book would be available in October containing this information. Who did you contact to get these photocopies?

Thread title: THE B TRAIN (754780)
Started on Mon May 5 11:47:31 1997, by John

Subject: THE B TRAIN
Message Number: 754780
Posted by: John
Date: Mon May 5 11:47:31 1997

Why is the B train using R-68s all of a sudden? I thought that it was exclusively an R-40 line. Are there any other changes in equipment similar to this on other lines?
- Subject: Re: THE B TRAIN
- Message Number: 754781
- Posted by: Wayne Johnson
- Date: Mon May 5 12:08:56 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]THE B TRAIN posted by John on May 05, 1997 at 11:47:31: I don't know why, but I have seen an occasional train of R-68's on the B line from time to time.
  - Subject: Re: THE B TRAIN
  - Message Number: 754782
  - Posted by: Mark Feinman
  - Date: Mon May 5 12:49:05 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]THE B TRAIN posted by John on May 05, 1997 at 11:47:31: I have heard that the scratched glass on the R-40s is getting very bad and NYC Transit takes those cars out of service on the weekends to repair what they can and possibly to cut down on the vandalism. --Mark
    - Subject: Re: THE B TRAIN
    - Message Number: 754794
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Mon May 5 23:52:53 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]THE B TRAIN posted by John on May 05, 1997 at 11:47:31: Actually, R-68As are being used on the 'B' line. (There is a difference) 3 trains to be exact. They are there because during the night hours 2 trains are cut into 4-car units and used for the OPTO (One person Train Operation). The 3rd train is kept as a spare during that time.

Thread title: Malbone St (was: Re: please answer .....) (754784)
Started on Mon May 5 13:36:14 1997, by Mark S Feinman

Subject: Malbone St (was: Re: please answer .....)
Message Number: 754784
Posted by: Mark S Feinman
Date: Mon May 5 13:36:14 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: please answer this question in as much detail as possible including historical and technical stuff please posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 04, 1997 at 19:03:37: Nothing of the Nov 1, 1918 Malbone Street wreck exists in the tunnel (or anywhere else that I can think of) anymore. However, I think the scratches on the tunnel walls are still evident. I'll find out for sure when the NY Transit Museum takes us to the site of this wreck on one of their new tours for the summer. A spring switch (a slip switch?) was installed in 1956, I believe, to allow all Franlin Shuttle trains to terminate where they do today. In 1972, a train of Budd R-32s derailed in the same spot as the Malbone St wreck, but the train was empty and it was travelling at 5 mph. No one was hurt and I don't think the R-32 that derailed suffered any damage (don't know the car #). 102 people died from the Malbone St wreck, many of those people electrocuted when BRT management turned the power back on, thinking the outage was sabatoge from striking BRT employees. IIRC, motorman Edward J Luciano was eventually found innocent of charges brought against him after the wreck. He was forced into service as a motorman and was not at all familiar with the Brighton Express route. Reports say he was travelling as fast as 40 mph when the speed limit in the area was 5 - 10 mph. He had overshot a number of stations that night as well. The tunnel is occasionally used for layup trains but not normally used in revenue service. --Mark

Thread title: what if & how much? (754785)
Started on Mon May 5 13:56:43 1997, by Dwayne J. Davis

Subject: what if & how much?
Message Number: 754785
Posted by: Dwayne J. Davis
Date: Mon May 5 13:56:43 1997

What would happen if it was decided that the present N.Y. subway was abandoned and destroyed and a completely new and modern subway built in it's place? How much would it cost to build a D.C. style subway on a N.Y. size scale? Give me details. Has anyone ever proposed such a thing?
- Subject: Re: what if & how much?
- Message Number: 754791
- Posted by: Zack
- Date: Mon May 5 21:15:26 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]what if & how much? posted by Dwayne J. Davis on May 05, 1997 at 13:56:43: it would be compleaty unecomacal to do such a thing... now revamping/remodling would be more ethical(and mabe nice too)
  - Subject: Re: what if & how much?
  - Message Number: 754800
  - Posted by: Dwayne J. Davis
  - Date: Tue May 6 11:58:41 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: what if & how much? posted by Zack on May 05, 1997 at 21:15:26: Explain
    - Subject: Re: what if & how much?
    - Message Number: 754804
    - Posted by: Philip Nasadowski
    - Date: Tue May 6 16:42:50 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]what if & how much? posted by Dwayne J. Davis on May 05, 1997 at 13:56:43: Ok - abandon the NY subway. How? It's simply too important of a system to simply "replace" As for DC type stations - it would be impossible. The NY subway is right below street level in many places, whereas the D.C. system is somewhere below the earth's crust. Besides, why bother anyway? And what's with peoppl'es obsession with D.C.'s system anyway? It's damm small, it's stations are poorly lit (by NY standards and certainly by Bart standards), and they are at the center of the earth. Add the world's most bizzar fare structure and supereasy to hop turnstiles to that.... And nevermind the fact that D.C.'s system isn't even a 24 hour one..... Why replace Ny's subways? They've done a remakeable job for the last 90+ years...
      - Subject: Re: what if & how much?
      - Message Number: 754820
      - Posted by: Dan Lawrence
      - Date: Wed May 7 10:48:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: what if & how much? posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 06, 1997 at 16:42:50: You said it!! DC's subway (AKA METRO) is so small that the work diesels have had the cabs cut down so far to clear that the poor engineer has to sit on the floor to run it. An IRT Composite wouldn't fit, neither would an all-electric 9' wide P.C.C.

Thread title: REDBIRDS (754786)
Started on Mon May 5 14:58:49 1997, by John

Subject: REDBIRDS
Message Number: 754786
Posted by: John
Date: Mon May 5 14:58:49 1997

Why were the R-30 Redbirds (for the BMT/IND lines) retired, while the IRT Redbirds are still in service? Why didn't the TA keep the R-30s in service?
- Subject: Re: REDBIRDS
- Message Number: 754793
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Mon May 5 23:47:31 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]REDBIRDS posted by John on May 05, 1997 at 14:58:49: The B division had ample cars to meet its' service requirements without the R-27/30s. Since cars must be inspected and maintained on a regular schedule (approximately 10K miles or 66 days), surplus cars are not cost-effective to maintain (in most cases). In addition, the 27s/30s were not air conditioned and therefore would not be used except during the winter.
  - Subject: Re: REDBIRDS
  - Message Number: 754795
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Tue May 6 10:24:30 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: REDBIRDS posted by Steve on May 05, 1997 at 23:47:31: Alright, but why were the windows on most of the IRT Redbirds changed? They used to have an upper half and a lower half, in which the upper half could be slid down to open the window, but now, there is only a small portion on the top that is turned inward to open.
    - Subject: Re: REDBIRDS
    - Message Number: 754811
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Tue May 6 19:50:04 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: REDBIRDS posted by John on May 06, 1997 at 10:24:30: Several years ago, the TA was mandated to change to FRA II glass. At that time several things were considered when the glass was ordered; First, standardization to limit the number different types of glass which had to be ordered. Second, the safety issue. Limit the size of the opening to prevent objects from being thrown out and to keep various body parts inside.

Thread title: WHY THE LARGE NUMBERS OF DUPLICATE POSTS? (754789)
Started on Mon May 5 19:05:12 1997, by FRED WELLMAN

Subject: WHY THE LARGE NUMBERS OF DUPLICATE POSTS?
Message Number: 754789
Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
Date: Mon May 5 19:05:12 1997

I may have missed something but why are some posts listing 4-10 times?
- Subject: Re: WHY THE LARGE NUMBERS OF DUPLICATE POSTS?
- Message Number: 754792
- Posted by: David Pirmann - Web Site Host
- Date: Mon Jun 16 21:44:58 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]WHY THE LARGE NUMBERS OF DUPLICATE POSTS? posted by FRED WELLMAN on May 05, 1997 at 19:05:12: My guess is that some people don't realize that when they make a post they won't see it on the index until they Reload the page. If they have the index cached their new post won't appear. So they post it again thinking the system didn't take it the first time. As far as I know it's not a bug in the software but people actually pressing submit multiple times. I try to clean them up as I see them but it's hard to keep up with. --Dave

Thread title: bus shuttles subway specials (754796)
Started on Tue May 6 10:27:43 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: bus shuttles subway specials
Message Number: 754796
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Tue May 6 10:27:43 1997

i am looking for a detailed routing list of all bus subway specials including all routing details for the last 3 yr.these are the bus shuttles put in place for subway construction periods or special events

Thread title: N Line to La Guardia ? (754797)
Started on Tue May 6 11:09:32 1997, by Ted Nielsen

Subject: N Line to La Guardia ?
Message Number: 754797
Posted by: Ted Nielsen
Date: Tue May 6 11:09:32 1997

I would like to know if there are any plans to build an extension of the N Line from its current terminus at Ditmars Blvd. in Astoria to La Guardia Airport ? I would also like to know if there are any plans to build a direct link between La Guardia and JFK ( via subway or LRT ) ?
- Subject: Re: N Line to La Guardia ?
- Message Number: 754836
- Posted by: Roger Leonard
- Date: Thu May 8 02:56:26 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]N Line to La Guardia ? posted by Ted Nielsen on May 06, 1997 at 11:09:32: 5-8-97 I've heard about the N-line extension to LaGuardia, altho I don't recall where I read the information. I'll search my archives (I'm a railfarn) and get back to you. The LaGuardia-to-JFK has been in the discussion stage for awhile. Think I may also have some info on that as well. I'll have more time to do some research over the weekend. Talk to you in a bit!

Thread title: 42nd Street LRT ? (754798)
Started on Tue May 6 11:17:14 1997, by Ted Nielsen

Subject: 42nd Street LRT ?
Message Number: 754798
Posted by: Ted Nielsen
Date: Tue May 6 11:17:14 1997

I heard somewhere that there is a plan to build a LRT line on 42nd street ( the line would run along 42nd street and down 11th. Ave to the Javits Convention Center ) , is that true ? If it is , what is the current status of the project ? BTW , I can only imagine the traffic problems that would occur if this line was opened.
- Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
- Message Number: 754801
- Posted by: Peter Rosa
- Date: Tue May 6 13:39:08 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]42nd Street LRT ? posted by Ted Nielsen on May 06, 1997 at 11:17:14: The last I heard, the 42nd Street light rail plan was still only in the talking stage. I don't believe any contracts have been awarded (except maybe for some feasability studies etc.), and there definitely has been no actual construction. In any event, a light rail line running at grade is at best an imperfect solution to traffic problems.
  - Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
  - Message Number: 754803
  - Posted by: philip Nasadowski
  - Date: Tue May 6 16:36:14 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: 42nd Street LRT ? posted by Peter Rosa on May 06, 1997 at 13:39:08: *sigh* Why don't they just extend the damm #7 line and dump a few extra trains onto it (and the shuttle). I say run the 7 out to Javits, and then turn and go back east and downtown to Penn. Then we'll get a needed connection to BOTH major rail stations, and a connection to Javits from just about anywhere (Like Penn, 42nd st, GCT - which covers the bulk of the major points). Admittingly, it'd be difficult, cost $$$$, and turn the 7 into more of a packed line, but it would not only tackle the most annoying oversight in the system, but link up Javits too.
    - Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
    - Message Number: 754809
    - Posted by: Arthur Jacobs
    - Date: Tue May 6 19:38:23 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: 42nd Street LRT ? posted by philip Nasadowski on May 06, 1997 at 16:36:14: If I remember correctly the plan for a LRT was cancelled a while back as being too expensive.
      - Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
      - Message Number: 754816
      - Posted by: Julio Perez
      - Date: Wed May 7 09:06:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 42nd Street LRT ? posted by philip Nasadowski on May 06, 1997 at 16:36:14: From what I heard, extending the 7 west could pose a problem, as I hear the tunnel ends not too far from Times Square thanks to a building blocking its path... comments, anyone?
        
        Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
        Message Number: 754822
        Posted by: Peter Rosa
        Date: Wed May 7 12:00:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 42nd Street LRT ? posted by Julio Perez on May 07, 1997 at 09:06:42: The lower level of the 42nd Street IND station blocks the westward extension of the 7 train. Removing this level shouldn't be any big deal, however, as it's been abandoned for years. Still heading west, a 7 extension then might be blocked by some underground fuel tanks at the Port Authority Bus Terminal. There's some question about their exact location, however. If these tanks are indeed in the way, moving them no doubt could be expensive. I'm not sure if any of the Lincoln Tunnel approaches could interfere with a 7 extension.
        
        Subject: Re: 42nd Street LRT ?
        Message Number: 754826
        Posted by: Blaise Dupuy
        Date: Wed May 7 16:40:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 42nd Street LRT ? posted by Peter Rosa on May 06, 1997 at 13:39:08: From New York Streetcar News Vol IV, No 2 - April '97 42nd St. Trolley Update: After a series of delays, the final feasibitity study for the 42nd St. light rail line will be launched shortly, according to sorces close to the project. As previously reported here, the federally funded study, focusing on utility relocation, will bring prospective bidders, the affected utility firms, and relevant government officials together with representatives from cities which have actually built successful light rail systems. Transit foes, who have managed to delay the light rail initiative for nearly three years through lawsuits and other obstacles, now seek to derail thr project altogether by asserting that the cost of relocating utilities has been vastly understated. If the five-month study concludes that related utility costs are not prohibitive, Mayor Giuliani is expected to give the light rail project his full support. To subscribe to Streetcar News (IMHO, a great publication) contact: Committee for Better Transit Inc. Box 3106, Long Island City, NY 11103 (718) 728-0091

Thread title: Re: track maps new amtrak newark rr station (754815)
Started on Wed May 7 00:37:03 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: Re: track maps new amtrak newark rr station
Message Number: 754815
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Wed May 7 00:37:03 1997

In Reply to: [6]track maps amtrak newark station posted by steve lowenthal on May 04, 1997 at 00:20:21: correction,,,loooking for new track maps of the new amtrack monorail connection at new airport near haynes avenue

Thread title: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments (754817)
Started on Wed May 7 09:15:10 1997, by Todd Glickman

Subject: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
Message Number: 754817
Posted by: Todd Glickman
Date: Wed May 7 09:15:10 1997

The May edition of the "The Bulletin" of the New York Division of the Electric Railroaders' Association has an article on a scenario for car assignments when the 63rd Street connection (and resumption of service on the southern side of the Manhattan Bridge) is in effect, circa 2001. The article states this is VERY PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE. The highlights include 136 cars of R-143 ("new technology") cars for the L, and 48 R-143 cars for the M. M service would be rounded out with R-42s. Current R-68/68As assigned to the N would move to the Q for the increased 63rd St. service; the N would then have 90 R-32s, 50 slant R-40s, and 140 R-42s, for an interesting mix of equipment! The article states that in this proposal, the Q would be extended to 179 St., but it does not say what its route would be in Manhattan, nor what happens to the E, F, G, or R. One source has told me that when the southern side of the Manhattan Bridge reopens, the Q might be rerouted from Queens down Broadway via the express tracks, then over the Manhattan Bridge. By the way, if you are not a member of NYD/ERA, they publish an excellent monthly newsletter. Dues is $30 per year, and includes admission to their monthly meetings. For information, you can write to NYD/ERA, P.O. Box 3001, New York, NY 10008-3001.
- Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
- Message Number: 754819
- Posted by: Wayne Johnson
- Date: Wed May 7 09:34:29 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Todd Glickman on May 07, 1997 at 09:15:10: Thanks for the info. It will indeed be interesting to see what happens when the 63rd St connection is completed. I'm sure the Q will eventually be rerouted (or returned) to the Broadway Express/South side Manhattan Bridge since that's where it originally operated. I'm curious about it's role in Queens. I thought that the Queens Blvd-IND was pretty much overcrowded in terms of the trains already there. I guess something has to give - and would the Q operate via express or local. Even if some trains are turned at Continental Avenue, it still seems like it will be awfully crowded along the line.
  - Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
  - Message Number: 754823
  - Posted by: Mark S Feinman
  - Date: Wed May 7 13:28:02 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Wayne Johnson on May 07, 1997 at 09:34:29: I think the Q is going to run local in Queens when the 63rd ST connection opens up, and it is supposed to return as the Broadway Express when the SOuth side of the Brooklyn Bridge opens up. The Queens express is already at capacity in terms of trains per hour so I don't think there's any room for a 3rd. The G train may have its terminus permanently at Court Square as well, though that's just speculation, to allow the Q to enter Queens Blvd service. --Mark
    - Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
    - Message Number: 754833
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Wed May 7 19:49:28 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Todd Glickman on May 07, 1997 at 09:15:10:
      - Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
      - Message Number: 754834
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Wed May 7 20:06:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Todd Glickman on May 07, 1997 at 09:15:10: Thanks for the new info, Todd. I believe that extending the Q train to Continental Ave. makes more sense for 2 critical reasons. They are: 1) Having the Q & F start out at 179th St would amount to almost a duplicate service. The Q entering Manhattan on 63rd St. while the F at 53rd St. From there they would both travel down 6th Ave in Manhattan. In Brooklyn they would run on parallel lines blocks apart. Having the R start at 179th St. would offer riders a real choice in service from the terminal. 2) Having the Q and F terminate at 179th St and the E from Parsons Blvd. would mean that trains leaving Jamaica Yard for those services would all have to use 9 lead out of the yard. This would mean that every Qs (there will be 14 of them) would have to cross over the 5 & 6 lead tracks to get out of the yard. This would slow the other services also going into service via 5 and 6 leads. 3) At the end of the PM rush hour, the opposite would be true. There would be a conga line of trains from 179th St and Parsons Blvd. waiting to get into the yard. This would block D3 track. As it is, the Jamaica Yd. leads look like the LIE at rush hour when the trains are laying up after PM service. BTW the proposed car assignments are very interesting.
        
        Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
        Message Number: 754846
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Thu May 8 16:00:57 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Wayne Johnson on May 07, 1997 at 09:34:29: I would doubt that the Queens Blvd line could handle more than four services, so something will have to give, probably the G. In any event, connecting the 63rd St. Tunnel to that route is a lousy substitute for a new route into Queens, which is what the tunnle was intended for in the first place. The implication of all discussion on this subject is that the Q will feed in east of Queens Plaza. In this scenario, its biggest effect will be to draw passengers from the R which is already the lightest of the three existing QB routes which feed Manhattan. Meanwhile, customers for Brooklyn west of Roosevelt Av. will have to take the R, change to the E/F, and then to the G. This won't help the E/F or the G very much, making the already crowded express train make longer stops at QP and 23Ely.
        
        Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
        Message Number: 754904
        Posted by: Yoon Jae Lee
        Date: Mon May 12 02:41:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Steve on May 07, 1997 at 20:06:10: > 1) Having the Q & F start out at 179th St would amount to almost a > duplicate service. The Q entering Manhattan on 63rd St. while the F at > 53rd St. From there they would both travel down 6th > Ave in Manhattan. In Brooklyn they would run on parallel lines blocks > apart. Having the R start at > 179th St. would offer riders a real choice in service from the terminal. Remember that the Q really belongs on the Broadway line and has been moved over to 6 Ave because of work on the Manhattan Bridge. So once everything's in order by 2001 hopefully, it'll go back to being Broadway express. > BTW the proposed car assignments are very interesting. I doubt the L and M will use the new R-143s. I think there are clearance problems on the els in Brooklyn but I'm not exactly sure.
        
        Subject: Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments
        Message Number: 754908
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 12 08:50:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Yoon Jae Lee on May 12, 1997 at 02:41:52: On the contrary, the R-143s will be assigned to the L line after a brief 'tour of duty' on the Queens Blvd. Corridor. The L line will be the first line to receive the new Hi-Tech signal system which the R-143s (not the R-142s) will be designed to operate with.

Thread title: subways (754824)
Started on Wed May 7 14:22:47 1997, by who ever

Subject: subways
Message Number: 754824
Posted by: who ever
Date: Wed May 7 14:22:47 1997

I AM A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL THAT HAS A REPORT ON SUBWAYS IF ANY ONE HAS AN INFO CONTACKT ME
- Subject: Re: subways
- Message Number: 754825
- Posted by: John
- Date: Wed May 7 16:37:44 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]subways posted by who ever on May 07, 1997 at 14:22:47: I know quite a lot about subways (especially the New York Subway). What exactly are you trying to find out?
  - Subject: Re: subways
  - Message Number: 754830
  - Posted by: Allan
  - Date: Wed May 7 19:41:45 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: subways posted by John on May 07, 1997 at 16:37:44: A lot of us know a great deal about subways (and have a lot of reading material to refer to as well. Give us your questions and we will do our best to answer them. BTW - if you are in NYC, a good place to visit is the NY Transit Museum in Brooklyn.
    - Subject: subways
    - Message Number: 760224
    - Posted by: yestotom
    - Date: Wed Dec 17 15:08:04 1997
      
      question to statistics freaks which city has the longest subway system london or new york
      - Subject: Re: subways
      - Message Number: 760227
      - Posted by: charlie muller
      - Date: Wed Dec 17 15:08:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]subways posted by yestotom on December 04, 1997 at 22:46:06: according to the 1997 guinness book of records london has the most extensive underground or rapid transit railway system in the world. it has 244 miles of route, of which 86 miles is bored tunnel and 20 miles is ''cut and cover'' the whole system is operated by a staff of 14, 000 people; there are 267 stations and 3,985 cars form a fleet of 547 trains. passengers made 764 million journeys in 1994-1995. charlie muller
        
        Subject: Re: subways
        Message Number: 760249
        Posted by: Michael B.
        Date: Wed Dec 17 15:08:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [7]Re: subways posted by charlie muller on December 05, 1997 at 00:34:20: Charlie M.- What are the respective stats fot NYC transit? -Michael
        
        Subject: Re: subways
        Message Number: 760273
        Posted by: charlie muller
        Date: Wed Dec 17 15:11:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subways posted by Michael B. on December 05, 1997 at 12:42:00: To Michael B: the mta /nycta has the most stations. there are 468 stations in a network that covers 238 route miles. it serves an estimated 7.1 million people a day. also if you put all the tracks in a single line, including the tracks in the yards and tracks in abandoned stations all together it is 744 miles, you can go from nyc to chicago on a one way trip. also the nycta had the worst accident in the usa on november1, 1918 in brooklyn, when a brt line train derailed on a curve on malbone street in the brighton beach. there were 97 fatalities on the scene and 5 more people died later from injuries. the brt line went bankrupt on december 31, 1918 as a result of the tragedy.

Thread title: Grade crossing ? (754828)
Started on Wed May 7 18:28:14 1997, by Shig

Subject: Grade crossing ?
Message Number: 754828
Posted by: Shig
Date: Wed May 7 18:28:14 1997

Are there any grade crossings in NYC subway? If there are some, how is the third rail located near the crossing?
- Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
- Message Number: 754829
- Posted by: Bill
- Date: Wed May 7 18:41:47 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Grade crossing ? posted by Shig on May 07, 1997 at 18:28:14: There are no grade crossings. If there were, the thrid rail would have a gap were the road would cross the track. Cables would run under road and connect to the other third rail to have a a compleat curcit.
  - Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
  - Message Number: 754831
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Wed May 7 19:43:52 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Grade crossing ? posted by Shig on May 07, 1997 at 18:28:14: The last grade crossing on the NYCT (on a public street) was on the Canarsie 'L' line at the north end of the 105th St station. It was eliminated about 20 years ago. At the crossing, the 3rd rail was discontinued from one side of the road to another. Such gaps are common and pose no operational problems. The LIRR does the same.
    - Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
    - Message Number: 754839
    - Posted by: Shig
    - Date: Thu May 8 10:42:48 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Steve on May 07, 1997 at 19:43:52: Does LIRR (or PATH) still have grade crossings on a track with the third rail? I wonder if such crossings may have problems with careless people getting electric shocks from the third rail. Do they take any special measures to prevent people from coming into tracks at crossings?
      - Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
      - Message Number: 754840
      - Posted by: Peter Rosa
      - Date: Thu May 8 11:19:54 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Shig on May 08, 1997 at 10:42:48: The LIRR has many grade crossings on its third-rail lines. There's a gap in the third rail at these crossings, extending some distance on either side of the road to avoid danger to pedestrians. Trains are long enough that the third-rail gaps don't present a problem; even though a few shoes may lose contact with the third rail, enough will remain in contact that the train continues to take power. Metro-North has some similar crossings on the Harlem (and maybe the Hudson) line. I don't believe PATH has any grade crossings, though I'm not certain. Going back to the original posting in this thread, while the subway no longer has any grade crossings on revenue tracks, I have heard that there is a grade crossing (maybe two) on a yard lead at the 241st Street yard of the 2 train in the Bronx. I haven't been up by that yard in a long time, however, so I don't know for sure.
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 754842
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 8 13:35:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Shig on May 08, 1997 at 10:42:48: Many yards have grade crossings. Jamaica, Pitkin and 207th St. are the first to come to mind.
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 754844
        Posted by: Philip Nasadowski
        Date: Thu May 8 14:12:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Peter Rosa on May 08, 1997 at 11:19:54: The LIRR has plent of grade crossings. At the crossing, about a few feet from where it begins - the third rail ends - and then begins at the other side - look closely, and you'll notice that the ends are curved to ensure correct pickup of the shoes. This is also done at track switches. As long as the gap isn't too long (though the gaps at Jamacia sure are close..), the train can go along, stop, and even start up again. This is partly because each car has shoes on both sides of both trucks, but also because the other cars will still have power, and can pull "dead" cars along. I believe that M-1's are supposed to be able to do 80 mph with half the cars dead... Oh yeah, MN's New Haven line has catenary gaps in it - the wire is lifted to the point where the Pantagraph no longer can reach it - most noteable at bridges. Also note the lights flashing on Slamtrak trains approaching Hell's Gate bridge from LI. Does anyone know if Penn is still 25 cycle 11k?
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 754847
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Thu May 8 16:11:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 08, 1997 at 14:12:59: If you want to see rapid transit with grade crossings try Chicago. The outer ends of the Ravenswood and Douglas lines both have a good share of them. As with the LIRR, there are long gaps. Some crossings have devices to make it difficult to walk in on the tracks, while others have side gates which block the crossing when the main gates are up. Some are just plain crossings...
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 754848
        Posted by: Peter Rosa
        Date: Thu May 8 16:16:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 08, 1997 at 14:12:59: [re LIRR grade crossings] In addition to a large number in Nassau and Suffolk counties, the LIRR has one grade crossing on a third-railed line within NYC limits. The Port Washington line crosses Little Neck Parkway immediately to the west of the Little Neck station. The road doesn't seem to be too heavily traveled in the section by the crossing. There also are a number of LIRR grade crossings in Queens (and maybe Brooklyn) located on unpowered, lightly used freight lines. In addition, the South Brooklyn Railroad, or whatever it's called these days, has a grade crossing on Third Avenue in Brooklyn, in front of the Costco store; this crossing connects the subway (B line) with carfloat docks and is used for delivery of rolling stock.
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 754850
        Posted by: MJS
        Date: Thu May 8 19:06:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 08, 1997 at 14:12:59: What grudge do you hold against the National Railroad Passenger Company?
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 755007
        Posted by: John
        Date: Fri May 23 21:52:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Julio Perez on May 16, 1997 at 07:18:14: There is a picture of a train crossing a grade crossing on the Canarsie Line in the 1996 New York City Subway calander (I forgot what month, though).
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 755144
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Thu May 29 12:37:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 21:52:24: The photo of the A/B standards about to cross the grade crossing at E 105 St on the Canarsie Line is for November 1996. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Grade crossing ?
        Message Number: 753898
        Posted by: Julio Perez
        Date: Fri May 16 07:18:14 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Peter Rosa on May 08, 1997 at 11:19:54: Are there any pictures of these grade crossings as seen from cars and trucks crosssing over them (not from the subway cars)?

Thread title: # 7 Train in Pulp Fiction Book (754835)
Started on Wed May 7 20:41:58 1997, by Tom Van Etten

Subject: # 7 Train in Pulp Fiction Book
Message Number: 754835
Posted by: Tom Van Etten
Date: Wed May 7 20:41:58 1997

I am trying to find a PF book with short story about a time travel between Times Square and Willets Point (prior to Shea Stadium) If this cought your eye please check out Sub Talk achives for 4/24/97 for more details. Thank you,Tom.

Thread title: Re: Rochester Subway (754838)
Started on Thu May 8 03:22:10 1997, by Roger Leonard

Subject: Re: Rochester Subway
Message Number: 754838
Posted by: Roger Leonard
Date: Thu May 8 03:22:10 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Rochester Subway posted by Joe Barnes on May 01, 1997 at 13:44:57: 5-8-97 There's a really neat video entitled, 'The End Of The Line - Rochester's Subway', packed full of historical footage. The address on the back of the video is: Animatus Studio Rochester, NY You might want to drop them a line; I forgot what I paid for this tape, but it wasn't a lot.
- Subject: Re: Rochester Subway
- Message Number: 754841
- Posted by: Mark S Feinman
- Date: Thu May 8 13:18:50 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Rochester Subway posted by Joe Barnes on May 01, 1997 at 13:44:57: I just saw a book on the Rochester Subway at last week's East Penn Traction Show, but I can't remember its title. An outfit like Ron's Books or Kevin T Farrell would likely have it - I believe both advertise in the major model railroad magazines like Model Railroader or Railroad Model Craftsman. --Mark
  - Subject: Rochester Subway
  - Message Number: 754644
  - Posted by: Dan Weissmann
  - Date: Tue Apr 29 22:29:18 1997
    
    I was reading somewhere that Rochester, NY has an elaborate abandoned subway system. Does anyone know if this is true and, if so, where there might be info on it on the web.
    - Subject: Re: Rochester Subway
    - Message Number: 754658
    - Posted by: Gary Jacobi
    - Date: Wed Apr 30 11:33:26 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Rochester Subway posted by Dan Weissmann on April 29, 1997 at 22:29:18: Yes, it exists but it is not elaborate. I attended a meeting for my agency with Rochester Planning Oficials in 1967, where they proposed using what had been built as the basis of a new system. Here is what I think I recall. It had been trolley based. I'm not sure it was ever put into service. The most visible remnant is on the lower deck of a highway bridge over a waterway; it may even be an unused station.
      - Subject: Re: Rochester Subway
      - Message Number: 754686
      - Posted by: Philip D.
      - Date: Wed Apr 30 18:59:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Rochester Subway posted by Dan Weissmann on April 29, 1997 at 22:29:18: The Rochchester subway was a 1 line system going from one part of town to a major industrial area. It was built in an old canal(similar to the Newark City subway).When the industry left the town the line was closed due to the fact that the line would not be fully utilized. It used trolley cars.
        
        Subject: Re: Rochester Subway
        Message Number: 754696
        Posted by: Joe Barnes
        Date: Thu May 1 13:44:57 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Rochester Subway posted by Dan Weissmann on April 29, 1997 at 22:29:18: For a thorough history of the topic, see Andrew David Lipman, The Rochester Subway, Experiment in Municipal Rapid Transit. _Rochester History_ 36(April 1974)no. 2, pp 1-24. The quarterly Rochester History is available in many NY state libraries, including, I am sure, the NYPL. Rochester's "subway" (mostly aboveground, though low) was an effort to make use of the old Erie Canal right-of-way that went right through the city prior to the canal's realignment ca 1919-20. Transit operations were abandoned in 1956 and most of the right-of-way is now occupied by interstate feeders.

Thread title: Washington Metro (754845)
Started on Thu May 8 15:37:06 1997, by Trey Wadsworth

Subject: Washington Metro
Message Number: 754845
Posted by: Trey Wadsworth
Date: Thu May 8 15:37:06 1997

I love the metro in Washington D.C. go to the website WWW.WMATA.COM
- Subject: Re: Washington Metro
- Message Number: 755006
- Posted by: John
- Date: Fri May 23 21:50:36 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: Washington Metro posted by Randolph on May 17, 1997 at 23:49:19: A few things about the Washington subway: The lighting in the stations are very poor. The fare zones are also a pain in the ass to figure out and the turnstiles are strange. The trains run very smoothly and are more like commuter rail trains (the trains used on Metro-North and the LIRR are slightly similar to the Washington subway trains in that there are two doorways on both sides and the seating arrangement is similar). However, being a native New Yorker, the Washington subway is one of those systems that is nice to ride in for a visit, but to me, there is nothing like the New York City Subway System.
  - Subject: Re: Washington Metro
  - Message Number: 753929
  - Posted by: Randolph
  - Date: Sat May 17 23:49:19 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Washington Metro posted by Trey Wadsworth on May 08, 1997 at 15:37:06: I rode it when I went there. I like it too, except that the Rosslyn station smells like it doubles as an open sewer.

Thread title: Re: Grade crossing (754849)
Started on Thu May 8 17:31:22 1997, by Charles Fiori

Subject: Re: Grade crossing
Message Number: 754849
Posted by: Charles Fiori
Date: Thu May 8 17:31:22 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: Grade crossing ? posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 08, 1997 at 16:11:05: Grade crossings also exist on Evanston-Wilmette branch, near where I live. There are two, between Linden and Central stations, at the northernmost end of the line. Cyclone-fence-type gates block the tracks (there are two tracks) and swing open to allow passage of the train as well as block off the cross streets. Third rails are not covered here in Chi-town, as the shoes hang down rather than stick out.

Thread title: r 110-110as (754852)
Started on Fri May 9 11:40:58 1997, by lou sherwood

Subject: r 110-110as
Message Number: 754852
Posted by: lou sherwood
Date: Fri May 9 11:40:58 1997

does anybody know the schedules of the 110-110as???are they still running??//would appreciate the info!!!
- Subject: Re: r 110-110as
- Message Number: 754853
- Posted by: jIM
- Date: Fri May 9 14:13:10 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]r 110-110as posted by lou sherwood on May 09, 1997 at 11:40:58: The phone #s for the Line Superintendents are posted in virtually every subway car. Get the #s for the A line and the #2 line and call. They WILL have the schedules if the trains are running. The 110b leaves 207th St in the morning about 6:15 am when it is running.
  - Subject: Re: r 110-110as
  - Message Number: 754857
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Fri May 9 14:57:13 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]r 110-110as posted by lou sherwood on May 09, 1997 at 11:40:58: I have caught the R-110B at 207th street more than once at 3:30 PM, but that was more than a year ago.

Thread title: Vacuum Train (754856)
Started on Fri May 9 14:19:32 1997, by Jim

Subject: Vacuum Train
Message Number: 754856
Posted by: Jim
Date: Fri May 9 14:19:32 1997

What do you suppose would happen if the new NYCT Vacuum Train was delivered, off-loaded onto the tracks, went 60 feet and derailed?
- Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
- Message Number: 754858
- Posted by: Lefty
- Date: Fri May 9 15:06:47 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Vacuum Train posted by Jim on May 09, 1997 at 14:19:32: whats a vacuum train?
  - Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
  - Message Number: 754868
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Fri May 9 22:59:05 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Lefty on May 09, 1997 at 15:06:47: A vacuum train is a train that literally vacuums the tracks. The TA is ordering them because a recent study revealed that the subway was filthy (they're just realizing it now? Where the hell have they been for 90 years?). If the vacuum train were to travel 60 feet and derail, God knows what the TA will do, since I've been trying to figure out their logic ever since I started riding the subway. Knowing them, they'd probably leave the train there and let it rot for 50 years.
    - Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
    - Message Number: 754873
    - Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
    - Date: Sat May 10 15:42:26 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Vacuum Train posted by John on May 09, 1997 at 22:59:05: Sounds like another attempt to reinvent the wheel to me. The TA had a vacuum train back in the 1960s. If memory serves me right, it couldn't hack the subway filth. Here in Boston we had vacuum LRVs. The streetcar design from hell had its motor ventilation intakes at track level. Sucked the steel dust right into the location where it could do the most damage!
      - Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
      - Message Number: 754880
      - Posted by: Lefty
      - Date: Sat May 10 18:48:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 10, 1997 at 15:42:26: well why didnt they think of this a WHILE ago? there are many potential problems though, like will the machine break if it sucks up a rat? most of the garbage in between the tracks is like embeded there too and it wont be able to be sucked up.. but it probably will improve the cleanliness, and possibly smell, of the stations alot..
        
        Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
        Message Number: 754883
        Posted by: Philip Nasadowski
        Date: Sat May 10 19:11:13 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Lefty on May 10, 1997 at 18:48:05: Actually, a vacuum train is a train that SUCKS!!! :) (sorry, couldn't resist!) On the Subj of the LRV - I think that train represents all that's wrong with U.S. industry I.e>, make it higher tech than needed, expensive, and single supplyer dependant....
        
        Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
        Message Number: 754944
        Posted by: Joshua Yes, the Vacuum Train is back!! Caesar
        Date: Mon Jun 16 21:47:30 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Philip Nasadowski on May 10, 1997 at 19:11:13: Wow, tha TA has finally gotten smart enough to order a new Vacuum train. Wonder if tehy are going to vacuum up the tunnels as well as the station areas. This has it's advantages and disdvantages. It will remove alot of odor which can waft into stations as the garbage would no longer be in the tunnels, but at the same time there are metal objects, old, broken tools workers chuck and leave on the tracks when they are done with a job. I wonder what the train could and could not pick up, since there has to be some point where what the train tries to vacuum will damage it. I also remember seeing an old photo from the Union Turnpike station of a train going through spraying the walls clean. Did the TA have a" Shower Train" as well? Josh Caesar
        
        Subject: Re: Vacuum Train
        Message Number: 754953
        Posted by: John
        Date: Wed May 14 22:51:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Joshua Yes, the Vacuum Train is back!! Caesar on May 14, 1997 at 18:24:13: Hey Josh, I think I might have seen that same picture. Was there a man sticking his head out the window?

Thread title: Jacksonville (754859)
Started on Fri May 9 15:12:07 1997, by Dan Weissmann

Subject: Jacksonville
Message Number: 754859
Posted by: Dan Weissmann
Date: Fri May 9 15:12:07 1997

I'm planning a trip to Florida and will be going through Jacksonville. I heard they've got either a light rail line or people mover there and would like to check it out. Does anyone know if my info is correct? Thanks!
- Subject: Re: Jacksonville
- Message Number: 754860
- Posted by: Bryan Layne
- Date: Fri May 9 16:50:16 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Jacksonville posted by Dan Weissmann on May 09, 1997 at 15:12:07: ya..its a "people mover"(i hate people movers).Anyway,I doubt if its much to see,they personally make me sick.
  - Subject: Re: Jacksonville
  - Message Number: 754875
  - Posted by: Dan Weissmann
  - Date: Sat May 10 16:28:00 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Jacksonville posted by Bryan Layne on May 09, 1997 at 16:50:16: Do you know if it's an airport pm or does it actually go around the city?
    - Subject: Re: Jacksonville
    - Message Number: 754877
    - Posted by: Ted Nielsen
    - Date: Sat May 10 17:25:47 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Jacksonville posted by Dan Weissmann on May 10, 1997 at 16:28:00: Dan , the people mover goes around the city ( I saw a special report on ABC News a few months ago about how tax payers are paying for this transit system which isn't attracting enough riders in the segment : Its your Money ). Ted
      - Subject: Re: Jacksonville
      - Message Number: 754901
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Mon May 12 00:00:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Jacksonville posted by Ted Nielsen on May 10, 1997 at 17:25:47: I hear from relatives in Jacksonville that the system popularity is growing. In fact, the system is being expanded. I see nothing wrong with people movers. They serve a need. Miami has one that works hand-in-hand with their heavy rail system. There PMs at several major airports including Orlando and DFW.
        
        Subject: Re: Jacksonville
        Message Number: 754911
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Mon May 12 13:36:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Jacksonville posted by Dan Weissmann on May 09, 1997 at 15:12:07: PM are a great idea. Unfortunately I've only used 3 of them at Hartsfield-Atlanta, Cincinatti-North Kentucky and Orlando airports.

Thread title: Photos of the CTA (754861)
Started on Fri May 9 17:33:36 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: Photos of the CTA
Message Number: 754861
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Fri May 9 17:33:36 1997

Are there any Web Sites that have photos of the CTA trains? I know that the CTa web site at Transitchicago doesn't have any. The Cta enthusiasts page does have some. Are there any others with photos?
- Subject: Photos of the CTA
- Message Number: 754862
- Posted by: Brian Jakosz
- Date: Fri May 9 17:33:38 1997
  
  Are there any Web Sites that have photos of the CTA trains? I know that the CTa web site at Transitchicago doesn't have any. The Cta enthusiasts page does have some. Are there any others with photos?
  - Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
  - Message Number: 754865
  - Posted by: Bryan Layne
  - Date: Fri May 9 18:27:07 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Photos of the CTA posted by Brian Jakosz on May 09, 1997 at 17:33:36: That would be cool if the New York City Subway Resources would have some.....(hint,hint.)
    - Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
    - Message Number: 754874
    - Posted by: David Pirmann - Web Site Host
    - Date: Mon Jun 16 21:46:15 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Photos of the CTA posted by Bryan Layne on May 09, 1997 at 18:27:07: Contributions are welcome! None of us live in or near Chicago so don't expect a field trip soon, but if anyone has some, send 'em on in. --Dave
      - Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
      - Message Number: 754912
      - Posted by: Mark S Feinman
      - Date: Mon May 12 13:37:38 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Photos of the CTA posted by David Pirmann - Web Site Host on May 10, 1997 at 15:50:47: Folks - you're all in luck! If all goes according to plan, I will be going to Chicago at the end of June for a business trip. I plan to spend my time AFTER the business portion of the trip on CTA and hope to take lots of pictures AND video to add to my collection. Hopefully, this will be 2&1/2 days worth. I'm from the NY area and have been a subway fan for all of my 35 years now (I think I have a gene that predisposed me to liking trains!) and Chicago has been a place I've always wanted to visit. So, if any of you following SubTalk are from Chicago and can suggest areas to take photographs and videos (and might even know what the CTA policy on taking pictures or video is), your input is most welcome! I will send Dave the pix after they're developed to scan in and become part of NY Subway Resources. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
        Message Number: 754915
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Mon May 12 18:34:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Photos of the CTA posted by Mark S Feinman on May 12, 1997 at 13:37:38: I live about 2 and a half hours from Chicago.I would consider my self a die-hard CTA fan.Anyway,I would suggest taking lots of pictures on the Ravenswood(around the curves),O'Hare segment of Congress/Douglas/O'Hare line,and my fav the Howard-Dan Ryan line(the north side el part,its four track and also carries "Evanston Express" trains(rush-hour) and further south Ravenswood trains).Make sure to get a picture of a Ravenswood train crossing the Wells Street bridge over the Chicago River(its beautiful when you get all the skyscrapers in the background).If you have any trouble identifing the car types or anything else go to Chicago Transit/Metra Railfan Page at [7]http://members.aol.com/chirailfan/railfan.html .If you cant get it there e-mail Bill Vandervoort or me,I'm sure I could help.
        
        Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
        Message Number: 754916
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Mon May 12 18:37:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Photos of the CTA posted by Mark S Feinman on May 12, 1997 at 13:37:38: I live about 2 and a half hours from Chicago.I would consider my self a die-hard CTA fan.Anyway,I would suggest taking lots of pictures on the Ravenswood(around the curves),O'Hare segment of Congress/Douglas/O'Hare line,and my fav the Howard-Dan Ryan line(the north side el part,its four track and also carries "Evanston Express" trains(rush-hour) and further south Ravenswood trains).Make sure to get a picture of a Ravenswood train crossing the Wells Street bridge over the Chicago River(its beautiful when you get all the skyscrapers in the background).If you have any trouble identifing the car types or anything else go to Chicago Transit/Metra Railfan Page at [7]http://members.aol.com/chirailfan/railfan.html .If you cant get it there e-mail Bill Vandervoort or me,I'm sure I could help.
        
        Subject: Re: Photos of the CTA
        Message Number: 754926
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Tue May 13 13:39:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Photos of the CTA posted by Bryan Layne on May 12, 1997 at 18:37:10: Bryan ... thanks for the information! I'll be sure to check out the CTA railfan page as well as go to the sites you've identified! --Mark

Thread title: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix (754863)
Started on Fri May 9 17:34:27 1997, by Lefty

Subject: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix
Message Number: 754863
Posted by: Lefty
Date: Fri May 9 17:34:27 1997

according to my bus driver on the way home from school, new york city wont be running any low floor busses because there is a step up in the middle of the bus and since so many people on NYC buses stand up, this would be dangerous. there are busses in testing though.. do you think thats a good enough excuse not to have the convenience of low floor busses?
- Subject: Re: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix
- Message Number: 754864
- Posted by: Bryan Layne
- Date: Fri May 9 18:24:31 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix posted by Lefty on May 09, 1997 at 17:34:27: I don't know about that but what I do know is that low-floor buses are the most oquired(im a terrible speller) ugly things I've ever seen,who cares If there nifty and you get to save your breath with all of those 2 steps.Chicago has about 60 or so and I sure do hope they don't order any more because I detest them.Anyway....I just had to get that out.
  - Subject: Re: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix
  - Message Number: 754867
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Fri May 9 22:53:09 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix posted by Bryan Layne on May 09, 1997 at 18:24:31: I totally agree with you. I hate low-floor busses for that same reason: they are ugly. I was in Chicago about a year ago and I did ride in a couple of the low-floors on the #151 (I think). The busses are too low to the ground and there's something about them that's just not right.
    - Subject: Re: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix
    - Message Number: 754871
    - Posted by: Charles Fiori
    - Date: Sat May 10 08:14:41 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix posted by Lefty on May 09, 1997 at 17:34:27: If you want to see low floor buses in NYC, venture over to Roosevelt Island. The low floor Flyers make up their shuttle bus fleet. When Roosevelt Island first opened in 1975, they used to use electric buses with massive batteries, then school buses, etc.
      - Subject: Re: Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix
      - Message Number: 754910
      - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
      - Date: Mon May 12 11:12:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Low floor buses and NYCT just dont mix posted by Lefty on May 09, 1997 at 17:34:27: I think low floor buses are a good idea and a step forward, however in the NYCT I think they would be an accident(s) waiting to happen. NYCT buses routinely carry large numbers of standing passengers and it would only be a matter of time before a bus stops short and a passenger is thrown up or down the step. I have ridden the New Flyer Low floor buses on Roosevelt Island, NYC airports and Newark (NJ) airport and they seem to be suited for that sort of duty.

Thread title: IRT Stations (754866)
Started on Fri May 9 18:32:15 1997, by Bryan Layne

Subject: IRT Stations
Message Number: 754866
Posted by: Bryan Layne
Date: Fri May 9 18:32:15 1997

Do you know exactly how many IRT stations through Manhattan have been fully restored with restored tilework,ceilings,staircases,and a real good cleaning,etc.?

Thread title: Brooklyn Bridge Trains (754870)
Started on Fri May 9 23:06:52 1997, by Tony Rohling

Subject: Brooklyn Bridge Trains
Message Number: 754870
Posted by: Tony Rohling
Date: Fri May 9 23:06:52 1997

I am interested in hearing from anyone with info on the various forms of rail transit that ran across the Brooklyn Bridge. These indluded the original cable trains, trolleys and BMT elevated lines. Are there any online photos or maps? Thanks.
- Subject: Re: Brooklyn Bridge Trains
- Message Number: 754872
- Posted by: David Steckler
- Date: Sat May 10 11:28:47 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Brooklyn Bridge Trains posted by Tony Rohling on May 09, 1997 at 23:06:52: Tony, Check out the book, "The Brooklyn Elevated," by James Greller and Edward Watson. It has a section just on this topic, including pictures of the Park Row terminal.

Thread title: NJ Transit / Amtrak station at Newark Airport ? (754878)
Started on Sat May 10 17:35:43 1997, by Ted Nielsen

Subject: NJ Transit / Amtrak station at Newark Airport ?
Message Number: 754878
Posted by: Ted Nielsen
Date: Sat May 10 17:35:43 1997

Is there a possibility of building a Newark Airport loop by the Northeast Corridor Line with a station under the terminal ? This station could be served by NJ Transit and Amtrak ( with direct connections to Manhattan and other destinations in the Northeast ). I also heard about a Newark Airport people mover extension to a transfer station on the Northeast Corridor Line , is that true ? What option would be better ?
- Subject: Re: NJ Transit / Amtrak station at Newark Airport ?
- Message Number: 754924
- Posted by: Blaise
- Date: Tue May 13 08:58:55 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]NJ Transit / Amtrak station at Newark Airport ? posted by Ted Nielsen on May 10, 1997 at 17:35:43: NJ Transits board voted to authorize a $10.1 million contract to get work for the Northeast Corridor Newark Airport station underway this spring. The station will permit NJ Transit and possibly Amtrak trains to connect to the Newark Airport monorail. The Port Authority is providing the funding, collected through airport passenger landing fees. The project will enable train riders from Midtown Manhattan and points along the NJ Transit system including the Bergen/Main, Pascack and Port Jervis lines, once the Secaucus station opens in 2002 to reach airport terminals by rail. The station and monorail connection are projected to open in 2000. From "Mobilizing The Region" a publication of the Tri State Transportation Campaign - http://www.igc.apc.org/tstc/

Thread title: Subway Atuomateion (754879)
Started on Sat May 10 18:28:23 1997, by Zack

Subject: Subway Atuomateion
Message Number: 754879
Posted by: Zack
Date: Sat May 10 18:28:23 1997

would it be cool if the nyct made all of its lines&trains atomatic witout crew. they would be controlled by computers kinda like the docklands rwy&BC's Sky Train (please excuse my spelling)
- Subject: Re: Subway Atuomateion
- Message Number: 754881
- Posted by: Lefty
- Date: Sat May 10 18:51:01 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Subway Atuomateion posted by Zack on May 10, 1997 at 18:28:23: it would be absolutely terrible.. the loss of too many jobs.. and anyway, dont u feel safer on the subway with a conductor? also, computers are good, but in many cases human judgement is alot better.. the only thing that should be automated (which it will be) is the announcement of stops, cuz we cant understand the conductors as it is..
  - Subject: Re: Subway Atuomateion
  - Message Number: 754885
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Sat May 10 22:04:20 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: Subway Atuomateion posted by Lefty on May 10, 1997 at 18:51:01: Yeah, but the squak of the conductors adds effect to the subway environment.
    - Subject: Re: Subway Atuomateion
    - Message Number: 754889
    - Posted by: Zack
    - Date: Sun May 11 01:41:41 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Atuomateion posted by John on May 10, 1997 at 22:04:20: keep the conductor get rid of the engneer it maght actully be safer too (the nycta doesent want to to be in the black now !)
      - Subject: Re: Subway Atuomateion
      - Message Number: 754893
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Sun May 11 20:49:23 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Subway Atuomateion posted by Zack on May 10, 1997 at 18:28:23: The TA has experimented with automated trains in the past. There was an automated train on the Time Square-Grand Central Shuttle which caught fire and destroyed the Grand Central Station. The damage was so severe, the street buckled. (the fire was probably not due to the automation) Then there were the R-46s. They had ATO (Automatic Train Control) and were designed to be driverless (sought of) but they would routinely drop into 37n mode and limp back to the yard at 5 MPH. The ATO was ultimately removed. However, technology has come a long way. Actually, the thing standing in the way of automation is where would the funding come from? One of the little known sections of the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, section 13C states that federal monies will not be given to bring in 'new technologies' if those new technologies will result in a loss of jobs. Therefore, the NYCT could get the money to automate but would have to keep the train crews. That being the case, why spend the money on something that would add to maintenance costs and provide no operational $avings?
        
        Subject: Re: Subway Atuomateion
        Message Number: 754937
        Posted by: Hoga
        Date: Wed May 14 12:12:57 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Atuomateion posted by Lefty on May 10, 1997 at 18:51:01: Is thre any one out there who wana talk

Thread title: El Structure info (754884)
Started on Sat May 10 19:15:02 1997, by Pat Villani

Subject: El Structure info
Message Number: 754884
Posted by: Pat Villani
Date: Sat May 10 19:15:02 1997

I've been a NYC subway fan since I was a teen and recently started the design of an HO layout. I've started with building some R21 models and I'm also building some freelance el structures to test various ideas. So, I've been researching various elevated lines through published photographs and I'll be taking photos later this month of several lines. However, I have no dimensional references for any of the structures other than what I've approximated from photographs. Anyone know of a source for this type of information? The NY Transit Museum archive doesn't have anything.
- Subject: Re: El Structure info
- Message Number: 754891
- Posted by: David R. Steckler
- Date: Sun May 11 14:19:52 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]El Structure info posted by Pat Villani on May 10, 1997 at 19:15:02: A few years ago there was an article in either MR or RMC about El structures, unfortunately I don't remember which magazine or which issue. Perhaps some other board browse has the back issue index and they can steer you in the correct direction.
  - Subject: Re: El Structure info
  - Message Number: 754894
  - Posted by: Brian Jakosz
  - Date: Sun May 11 21:34:23 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by David R. Steckler on May 11, 1997 at 14:19:52: The best place to go to study this would be here in Chicago where I'm from. The green line which is Elevated above Lake Street and goes to the Loop and then to 63rd/Ashland or 63/Cottage Grove was just re-built. It was completly re-built and just was re-opened. It has been operating since the re-opening for about a year. AnyWay my point is that the whole EL structure that holds the tracks up was re-placed. May-be that can help you?
    - Subject: Re: El Structure info
    - Message Number: 754899
    - Posted by: Bryan Layne
    - Date: Sun May 11 22:21:33 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by Brian Jakosz on May 11, 1997 at 21:34:23: look at the post above "Oooops!" by me.....
      - Subject: Re: El Structure info
      - Message Number: 754906
      - Posted by: Frank Gatazka
      - Date: Mon May 12 08:22:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]El Structure info posted by Pat Villani on May 10, 1997 at 19:15:02: Good luck with your El modeling efforts! There are VERY FEW of us out there, but with the new Images Replicas injection molded subway cars available, I suspect many more modelers will be entering this unique field of traction modeling. The following references should help. They were presented as part of a clinic I gave several years ago at the Fall Trolley Extravaganza in Middletown, NY. If you can make this years show, it will be held at the King of Prussia Holiday Inn near Philadelphia, PA. I will be displaying a modular NYCTA prototype El layout and once again giving a clinic on El modeling. REFERENCES FOR THE EL MODELER: 1. "Farewell to the EL", Eric Bronsky, Model Railroader, April, 1976. 2. "Modeling Elevated Rapid Transit Lines", Eric Bronsky, Model Railroader, October, 1978. 3. "The El in HO", Joseph Frank, Traction and Models, May, 1981. 4. "The El in HO-Part II", Joseph Frank, Traction and Models, April, 1982. 5. "New York City Els of the 1940's", Joseph Frank, Scale Model Traction and Trolleys Quarterly, No. 20(1983). 6. "1/4" Scale Modeling -NYC El Lines", Joseph Frank, Electriclines, May-June, 1988. 7. "El? Do it Yourself!", Robert Olson, Traction and Models, January, 1971. 8. "Polyester Resin Casting", Eric Bronsky, Model Railroader, November, 1981. 9. "Born to Raise Els", Eric Bronsky, Model Railroader, October 1984. 10. "Big City El Modeling", Mike Palmiter, Scale Model Traction and Trolleys Quarterly, No. 40(1993). 11. "New York City Els of the 1940's-Part II", Joseph Frank, Scale Model Traction and Trolleys Quarterly, No. 21(1983). Drawings of Contract II El Structures appear in the new book "Building the New Rapid Transit System-1912" available from Ron's Books (914) 967-7541 and others. This is a reprint of articles that appeared in Engineering News Record. Old copies of ENR or Street Railway Journel also have drawings of El structures. Images Replicas will be marketing injection molded styrene El structure in the near future based on Third Avenue (Manhattan) prototype. They will also have signals (working) and proper subway type third rail kits available.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 754914
        Posted by: Bryan Layne
        Date: Mon May 12 18:16:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by Frank Gatazka on May 12, 1997 at 08:22:28: This is very good....I've always wanted to do the same thing but the only cars were brass and so expensive....and I always worried about how I would do the el structure.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 754923
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 12 23:19:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]El Structure info posted by Pat Villani on May 10, 1997 at 19:15:02: Several years ago Model Railroader ran a series on modeling el structures in HO scale. It might take some digging but it'll have all the answers to your questions.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 754951
        Posted by: Pat Villani
        Date: Wed May 14 22:51:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by Frank Gatazka on May 12, 1997 at 08:22:28: Thanks! This is exactly what I was looking for. BTW -- I started this nearly 20 years ago when I was creating a LIRR/NYCTA layout (I lived in NY at the time). I moved, boxed up the scratchbuilt LIRR coaches and an R-30 attempt. Unfortunately, it was acidentally destroyed in storage. I started all over again now when my wife gave me the Images Replicas kits for Christmas. They're good kits, but unpowered. I'm looking into Tenshodo and NorthWest Short Line powered trucks. They also need some work on adapting couplers to them. These kit are not for the first time modeler. I spoke to Jack regarding signals, third rail and el structure kits. He has some signals in that he's looking at now. The third rail kits will probably not be ready until the end of the month. Unfortunately,. it will be a while before he has the el structure kits ready. That's why I'm researching building my own. So far, I've found good approximation of the plate girders manufactured by Micro Engineering but their mold is broken and it will be a while before these will be available again. Looks like I'll be casting all of it. There's also another challenge in laying track -- simple flex track doesn't cut the mustard. That's next on my list but easier to tackle.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 754958
        Posted by: Frank Gatazka
        Date: Thu May 15 08:52:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by Pat Villani on May 14, 1997 at 22:51:20: You really should try to visit the Fall Trolley Extravaganza, to be held September 5 and 6 at the King of Prussia (near Philly) Holiday Inn. Besides myself, there will be others who have been involved in El modeling, and you can "pick their brains". I will be giving a clinic specifically on El track and deckwork modeling. If you can get a copy of the Traction and Models articles by Joe Frank from the eighties, you will understand how to build El trackwork in a realistic and reasonably simple manner. Besides the third rail kits soon to be released by Images Replicas, there are realistic round (similar to IND, BMT type) third rail chairs available from PECO (Pritchard Patent Products) which should be available from hobby dealers through Walthers. These use Code 40 or 55 rail, which is too light for exact NYCTA SUBWAY prototype, but would be correct for CTA or IRT, BRT Els. Alternately, you can easily make your own chairs from brads and beads (round type) or square blocks of wood or styrene (square IRT stlye). Hope this helps. Again, attend the show in September if you can!
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 754959
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Thu May 15 09:06:27 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by Pat Villani on May 14, 1997 at 22:51:20: The best bet for laying track is to hand lay it. It takes some effort to get everything right but it looks great when finished. I was in a model club some years back, and they had a really nice trestle, though no el structures. You can buy balsa for the safety beams and use pre-cut bridge ties under the rails. Nickel-silver rail is best, it comes in a variety of sizes. Brass tends to oxidize and has to be cleaned frequently. There is also a spike, which although a bit big compared to prototype, looks good. You put these in with needle nose pliers, which have a small notch cut near the tip. Frogs and (ugh) diamonds are more difficult, once made they should be soldered together to avoid problems. Running with third rail is a good idea since the special work requires cuts to allow two rail operation. Good Luck.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 755005
        Posted by: John
        Date: Fri May 23 21:44:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: El Structure info posted by Frank Gatazka on May 15, 1997 at 08:52:28: Is it possible to have a model subway layout in which the train collects power from a third rail, rather than through the wheels from the tracks? Also, where can you but model New York Subway trains. Especially interested in R-20 series, R-30 series, and R-40 series trains.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 755049
        Posted by: Pat Villani
        Date: Mon May 26 09:41:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 21:44:33: I know of one modeler who used third rail power in an O guage (1:48) layout. It may be possible to do it in HO, but I have yet to try it. For more information on models and kits, see: http://www.nycsubway.org/saleitems.html for a list of vendors. I'm also constructing an addition to my web site on Modeling the NYC Subway System at: http://www.iop.com/~patv/railroad.html. It's still under construction but check there from time to time as I make additions.
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 755111
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Wed May 28 13:31:53 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 21:44:33: I have seen HO scale subway modeling with third rail pickup, so it is possible. However, I think those modelers hand-laid their track, as there isn't any commercially available third rail kit currently available (though Images Replicas is supposed to come out with one soon). For models, check out http://www.nycsubway.org/saleitems.html. MTS Imports planned to make R-32 subway cars (and I think R40s) but due to the expense of brass and lack of interest, these models were never made in HO scale. So far, images replicas seemes to be the only supplier making NYC subway models in plastic kits. DOn't know if they plan on doing any BMT/IND division stock, though. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: El Structure info
        Message Number: 755132
        Posted by: Frank Gatazka
        Date: Thu May 29 07:43:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: El Structure info posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 21:44:33: Yes it IS POSSIBLE to power model subway/elevated trains from outside third rail just like the prototype. This has been done successfully by several modelers in "O" scale including Bob Olsen, Vern Gillman and the Bay Ridge Club in Brooklyn. In "HO" or smaller scales, it is not practicable, as the weight of the cars is much lower and not comatible with the required spring pressure at the third rail for reliable operation. Joe Frank uses "dummy" third rail in "O" scale also, citing the improved reliability from two rail pick-up. Check the list of model suppliers at this website for suppliers of NYCTA subway models. I know of no commercial models of R-30 or R-40 cars, however MTS imports did R-15, 17, 22, 29 (with gross errors), 33 and 36 cars in brass as well as the BMT D type Triplex's (expensive and out of production). Images Replicas currently is making injection molded styrene kits of R-21/22 and R-17 cars in HO that are very nice and relatively inexpensive, but are not powered. They are also not "shake the box" kits, but require some work. Hope this helps!

Thread title: Green -- Red -- ? (754886)
Started on Sat May 10 22:14:16 1997, by John

Subject: Green -- Red -- ?
Message Number: 754886
Posted by: John
Date: Sat May 10 22:14:16 1997

In the 1980s, when the TA started rebuilding the subway cars, I remember that they painted some of the cars [that are now Redbirds] dark green, while others were painted red. Then, they repainted all of them red. Is there a particular reason why red was chosen? Why didn't they keep the trains that were green, green? And also, was there any other color that was debated over for the rebuilt trains?
- Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
- Message Number: 754888
- Posted by: Bryan Layne
- Date: Sat May 10 23:32:28 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Green -- Red -- ? posted by John on May 10, 1997 at 22:14:16: I read that they somehow remembered that they were once painted red(in a variety of shades) and a can of red was sent up from Philly and they decided to paint them red.
  - Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
  - Message Number: 754892
  - Posted by: Jim
  - Date: Sun May 11 20:37:38 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Green -- Red -- ? posted by John on May 10, 1997 at 22:14:16: The green was known as Restoration Green. It was used mostly on the R-10s. The IRT cars, as I remember, were painted white (especially on the #7 line). I think that was to send a message to the graffiti criminals. Red was settled on because it was the original color of the 33s and 36s except for the Flushing Line cars which were light blue and beige-white. Those 33s & 36s were probably the best looking cars ever to run in the system.
    - Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
    - Message Number: 754895
    - Posted by: Bryan Layne
    - Date: Sun May 11 22:08:53 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Green -- Red -- ? posted by Jim on May 11, 1997 at 20:37:38: Actually,to be more specific,the el structure was not replaced it was refurbished.The refurbishment included column base replacement(the weak and crumbling ones),some column replacement(very weak and deteriorating ones),and new track and ties(im not sure,but I think they used welded rails),also electrical systems were upgraded.
      - Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
      - Message Number: 754896
      - Posted by: Bryan Layne
      - Date: Sun May 11 22:18:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Green -- Red -- ? posted by Bryan Layne on May 11, 1997 at 22:08:53: This is going to sound really stupid but I accidently posted this follow up to the wrong post.....its supposed to be a response to "El Structure info" posted by Brian Jakosz.
        
        Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
        Message Number: 754917
        Posted by: Bob Wright
        Date: Mon May 12 20:20:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Green -- Red -- ? posted by Bryan Layne on May 10, 1997 at 23:32:28: This is the story I've heard. It supposedly occurred shortly after David Gunn took over at the MTA. He saw that the white was a disaster and the green was not to his liking. The ancient relics on the Broad Street Subway here in Phila were repainted for the last time in the late 70's after their umpteenth mini-rehab, when the new order from Kawasaki was finally in sight. This rehab included the replacement of windows with lightweight type frames (similar to those used on school buses), which rattled far less than the older, heavier windows did (it took some of the character away, so some say!). The paint scheme had changed at this time also, from the white with orange/blue stripes introduced by SEPTA, back to the deep red (almost maroon) that most cars still featured at the time. This scheme was a modified version of that introduced by the Pressed Steel cars purchased in 1938. The new red was a little brighter and was called "fox red". Gunn supposedly noted that it showed the grime far less than any other color (given that a great deal of subway grime came from brake shoe dust, which tended to be brown-red) and he dispatched someone to go to Fern Rock shops and get a can (the old Broad Street cars had been retired for several years by this time). Thus, the red was introduced to the NY system.
        
        Subject: Re: Green -- Red -- ?
        Message Number: 754929
        Posted by: Charles Fiori
        Date: Tue May 13 17:28:09 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Green -- Red -- ? posted by Bob Wright on May 12, 1997 at 20:20:10: Anyone remember the story that because David Gunn went to Harvard, the color scheme chosen (red/black/gray) purposely bore some resemblance to the palette of choice up in Cambridge?

Thread title: Brooklyn Bridge Service (754890)
Started on Sun May 11 11:58:19 1997, by Alex Adleman

Subject: Brooklyn Bridge Service
Message Number: 754890
Posted by: Alex Adleman
Date: Sun May 11 11:58:19 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: 63rd Street Connection Car Assignments posted by Mark S Feinman on May 07, 1997 at 13:28:02: Wow! The Brooklyn Bridge? I didn't even know it was closed!
- Subject: Re: Brooklyn Bridge Service
- Message Number: 754903
- Posted by: Yoon Jae Lee
- Date: Mon May 12 02:36:20 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Brooklyn Bridge Service posted by Alex Adleman on May 11, 1997 at 11:58:19: That's long closed permanantly!! He meant the Manhattan Bridge so. tracks that have been closed on and off for nearly 9 years now!!!
  - Subject: Re: Brooklyn Bridge Service
  - Message Number: 754913
  - Posted by: Mark S Feinman
  - Date: Mon May 12 13:46:26 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Brooklyn Bridge Service posted by Alex Adleman on May 11, 1997 at 11:58:19: Major oooops on that one!! I can't attribute this one to spelling errors!! What WAS I thinking of? :-)))))
    - Subject: Re: Brooklyn Bridge Service
    - Message Number: 753900
    - Posted by: oLLE nILSEEN
    - Date: Fri May 16 10:09:52 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: Brooklyn Bridge Service posted by Mark S Feinman on May 12, 1997 at 13:46:26: hello,why don�t you build a subway in LEKSAND?

Thread title: Oooops! (754897)
Started on Sun May 11 22:19:41 1997, by Bryan Layne

Subject: Oooops!
Message Number: 754897
Posted by: Bryan Layne
Date: Sun May 11 22:19:41 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: Green -- Red -- ? posted by Bryan Layne on May 11, 1997 at 22:08:53: This is going to sound really stupid but I accidently posted this follow up to the wrong post.....its supposed to be a response to "El Structure info" posted by Brian Jakosz.

Thread title: Circles and Straps (754900)
Started on Sun May 11 22:42:19 1997, by John

Subject: Circles and Straps
Message Number: 754900
Posted by: John
Date: Sun May 11 22:42:19 1997

What was the story with the circular windows on the doors (the R-11, R-15, R-16, and R-17 had them - the R-11 & R-15 had them on the end doors and the side doors, but the -16 and -17 only had them on the end doors). Why did the TA return to square/rectangular windows later and the circular windows never seen again? Also, there were (at least) three different types of straps. One was kind of curved (on the R-10s, R-16s, and R17s), the ones with small loops, and the big loops (which are the current ones). If the straps were to return on the new trains, what kind do you think we will see?

Thread title: Re: Subway Automation (754905)
Started on Mon May 12 07:51:28 1997, by Julio Perez

Subject: Re: Subway Automation
Message Number: 754905
Posted by: Julio Perez
Date: Mon May 12 07:51:28 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Atuomateion posted by Steve on May 11, 1997 at 20:49:23: I suppose the only transit-related entities that would benefit from automation would be those created after the Urban Mass Transit Act of 1964, section 13C took effect. MDTA's (Metro-Dade Transit Agency) and MARTA's (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) both use heavy rail vehicles that are at least partially automated. The driver does have some control over the vehicles, and can manually override them if required. Also, MDTA's Metromover is fully automated. Metrorail and MARTA Rail started operations in 1985 and in the late 1970s, respectively.
- Subject: Re: Subway Automation
- Message Number: 754907
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Mon May 12 08:45:49 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Automation posted by Julio Perez on May 12, 1997 at 07:51:28: The age of the system is not the criteria. However you are right. If the NYCT were to open a new line which was automated, there would not be a decrease in jobs. so there would likely be UMTA funds available because no existing jobs would be lost. However, job losses are not out of the question. One person train operation (OPTO) will result in job losses but not through the use of technology. One the other hand, Automatic Fare Collection (AFC) will cause a shift in jobs (but no immediate loss) from clerks to maintainers through the use of new technology.
  - Subject: Re: Subway Automation
  - Message Number: 754935
  - Posted by: Nathan
  - Date: Wed May 14 02:09:41 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Atuomateion posted by Lefty on May 10, 1997 at 18:51:01: (In response to "Zack's" follow-up) After moving to Vancouver (from Toronto, and my beloved TTC Subway) in 1986, I was introduced to that city's brand new SkyTrain, which is a fully automated (There is NO operator present) elevated line which also utilizes ticket vending machines. Stops are anounced by a somewhat robotic, female voice, which is more audible than any human could ever be. The trains (which use Linear Induction Motors) are quite safe, despite the fact that the trains on the 29km (19mi) guidway routinely run at about 85km/h at as short as 3 minute headways during rush hours. The fact that the trains are fully automated does not deterr people from riding them, infact ridership on the line has grown significantly on a yearly basis. Besides, whoever uses the "human judgment" argument should be reminded of Heaven's Gate. If a new line was to be added to the New York system it would be more cost effective to have it automated, and Bombardier (supplier of the new R-110B prototype(?) subway cars) has already developed ATO technology to a nearly perfected state, as demonstrated in the new Kuala Lumpur Advanced Rapid Transit Mk2 vehicals, which are fully automated and employ Linear Induction Motors. In any case, automated trains are safe, cost effective, and have already been proven in day to day service.
    - Subject: Re: Subway Automation
    - Message Number: 754950
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Wed May 14 22:48:51 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: Subway Automation posted by Nathan on May 14, 1997 at 02:09:41: I, uh, I don't mean to bust anybody's bubble here, but did anybody notice that "automation" is severely misspelled?
      - Subject: Re: Subway Automation
      - Message Number: 753894
      - Posted by: Dan Lawrence
      - Date: Fri May 16 00:53:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Subway Automation posted by Julio Perez on May 12, 1997 at 07:51:28: Don't forget Baltimore, which has the ORIGINAL Budd/Transit America cars. The Miami cars were built after the original MTA order. The control system allows the operator to switch from ATO to manual control at any time. Some operators here regularly run in manual mode just to keep their skills up. (Some of them actually operate better than the ATO mode (which tends to "stonewall" the stops). I guess that computers can't remember to bleed the air when the train comes to a stop.
        
        Subject: Re: Subway Automation
        Message Number: 753920
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Fri May 16 23:10:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Automation posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:48:51: I am A TERRABLE spellar. (i was wondering when somebody would catch that)

Thread title: Brakes (754922)
Started on Mon May 12 23:14:53 1997, by Glen

Subject: Brakes
Message Number: 754922
Posted by: Glen
Date: Mon May 12 23:14:53 1997

I read somewhere that the R-142s will have Regenerative Brakes. What are regenerative brakes and what is the difference between them and dynamic brakes?
- Subject: Re: Brakes
- Message Number: 754927
- Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
- Date: Tue May 13 14:12:59 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Brakes posted by Glen on May 12, 1997 at 23:14:53: Dynamic and Regenerative braking both use the motors to as generators and provide a load to cause the motors to slow down and thus slow the car. In dynamic braking, the motors themselves provide some of the load, while resistors under the carbody provide the rest. In regenerative braking, the load is privided by pumping the energy generated back into the power distribution system.

Thread title: Re: STRAPHANGER!! (754925)
Started on Tue May 13 09:30:28 1997, by Beatrice

Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
Message Number: 754925
Posted by: Beatrice
Date: Tue May 13 09:30:28 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 01, 1997 at 15:52:22: I haven't been a straphanger for years. They were great at the time, when I was going to work, but I didn't know better. Now, they are definately outdated. As a child, they were awful because I was too small to hang on to them. I guess they could have used a children's section. That would have been something!!
- Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
- Message Number: 754928
- Posted by: John
- Date: Tue May 13 16:35:16 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by Beatrice on May 13, 1997 at 09:30:28: How are they outdated?
  - Subject: STRAPHANGER!!
  - Message Number: 754592
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Mon Apr 28 19:24:12 1997
    
    What happened to the hand-hold straps in the older subway cars? Why did the TA replace them with railings? I beleive the Redbirds are the only trains in the New York fleet that still have the straps. Will they be brought back in the R-142?
    - Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
    - Message Number: 754594
    - Posted by: MJS
    - Date: Mon Apr 28 20:24:00 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 19:24:12: Posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 19:24:12: >What happened to the hand-hold straps in the older subway cars? Why did >the TA replace them with railings? I beleive the Redbirds are the only >trains in the New >York fleet that still have the straps. Will they be brought back in the >R-142? Thank god they won't! I hate them!
      - Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
      - Message Number: 754595
      - Posted by: MJS
      - Date: Mon Apr 28 20:24:09 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 19:24:12: Posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 19:24:12: >What happened to the hand-hold straps in the older subway cars? Why did >the TA replace them with railings? I beleive the Redbirds are the only >trains in the New >York fleet that still have the straps. Will they be brought back in the >R-142? Thank god they won't! I hate them!
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754599
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Mon Apr 28 21:48:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 19:24:12: im glad they dont have them cuz one time i was holding one on teh 7 train, and the guy in the seat behind the strap that i was holding stood up, but i didnt notice, and i was getting off the train too, and i let go of it and it snapped back and hit the guy in the head really hard.. im lucky he was a nice guy otherwise i might not be writing this now!
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754600
        Posted by: John
        Date: Mon Apr 28 21:55:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by MJS on April 28, 1997 at 20:24:00: Why does everybody hate the straps? I love them!! They were really a New York thing. I can't think of another subway that has individual straps like New York did.
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754607
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Tue Apr 29 00:02:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 21:55:24: I doubt that you'll ever see straps again. The hand-holds will likely be integrated into the recessed lighting similar to the arrangement on the 110Bs. Many of the old straps were removed before the cars were scrapped. They were mounted on walnut plaques and adorn many offices.
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754609
        Posted by: Philip Nasadowski
        Date: Tue Apr 29 06:53:37 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 28, 1997 at 21:55:24: I LOVE them too!!! Actually, I love the Redbirds, but ANYWAY.... I think Path (!) still has the tinny tiny ones on their cars (at least they did last time I was on Path this year)
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754617
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Tue Apr 29 10:01:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by Jim on April 29, 1997 at 00:02:06: Subway cars in Boston always had straps too. Unfortunately the only ones left are on the PCC streetcars on the Mattapan-Ashmont Line. All our old Boston (and New York) equipment at Seashore has them. (And I miss them too!)
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754627
        Posted by: John
        Date: Tue Apr 29 17:09:15 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by Gerry O'Regan on April 29, 1997 at 10:01:52: Boston had them? I don't know much about the Boston subway, but I have visited that city about once a year since 1993. Were the straps in the Boston subway replaced by bars during a car refurbishment project, as in New York?
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754633
        Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
        Date: Tue Apr 29 19:00:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 29, 1997 at 17:09:15: I lived in Boston from 1978 to 1985. I don't remember any leather straps on the cars but I do remember some metal stap like handholds. I cannot remember what line they were on. I think? they were on the old Orange line cars. These were at the time the oldest subway cars in service on the MBTA. They were not rebuilt but retired.
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754643
        Posted by: John
        Date: Tue Apr 29 22:25:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by FRED WELLMAN on April 29, 1997 at 19:00:33: The metal straps are the ones I'm talking about, anyway. Those were the kinds that New York used to have.
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754650
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Wed Apr 30 07:46:11 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 29, 1997 at 22:25:17: Actually NYCT has white enamel over steel on most cars while I seem to remember that very early cars had a rope or cable with a ball on the end.
        
        Subject: Re: STRAPHANGER!!
        Message Number: 754699
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Thu May 1 15:52:22 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: STRAPHANGER!! posted by John on April 29, 1997 at 17:09:15: The last subway cars in Boston with them were retired about two years ago. I totally agree with the comments on horizontal bars, they don't cut it.

Thread title: nyc transit bus rosters=1940=1970 (754933)
Started on Wed May 14 01:07:34 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: nyc transit bus rosters=1940=1970
Message Number: 754933
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Wed May 14 01:07:34 1997

looking for bus rosters of this period,,,including bus fleet numbers,,mgfr,,model,series,,number of vehicles and date ,,thank u

Thread title: track map PATH (754934)
Started on Wed May 14 01:10:22 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: track map PATH
Message Number: 754934
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Wed May 14 01:10:22 1997

looking for a detailed track map ,,of the PATH ,,,new jersey ,,between journal sq to newark ,,inclusive,..,also looking for a track map of the proposed extensions to newark airport
- Subject: Re: track map PATH
- Message Number: 754998
- Posted by: John
- Date: Fri May 23 19:09:21 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: track map PATH posted by Ted Nielsen on May 15, 1997 at 21:38:35: There is a plan that I know of that is similar to this. NJ Transit is planning on extending the Newark Subway from Penn Station into downtown Elizabeth and have some sort of link to Newark Airport. NJ Transit is also planning on replacing the PCC trolley cars with modern Japanese-built trolley cars starting in 1999.
  - Subject: Re: track map PATH
  - Message Number: 755027
  - Posted by: steve lowenthal
  - Date: Sat May 24 23:03:02 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: track map PATH posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 19:09:21: does anyone have track plans of the present path and future extensions,,,,on the new jersey side
    - Subject: Re: track map PATH
    - Message Number: 753887
    - Posted by: Ted Nielsen
    - Date: Thu May 15 21:38:35 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]track map PATH posted by steve lowenthal on May 14, 1997 at 01:10:22: As far as I know , there is only a plan to extend the Newark Airport people mover to a transfer station on the Northeast Corridor Line serving NJ Transit and Amtrak ( I'm not sure if PATH will stop there ). About the map of PATH : I don't know where you can find a map on that section of the PATH network , there is a map located at this site , but its incomplete.

Thread title: Toronto's Plan to build arena on Union Station (754936)
Started on Wed May 14 10:35:30 1997, by Stephen Hodd

Subject: Toronto's Plan to build arena on Union Station
Message Number: 754936
Posted by: Stephen Hodd
Date: Wed May 14 10:35:30 1997

Serious consideration is being given to building an arena over the commuter rail station in downtown Toronto. I am concerned with the impact of building massive columns between the tracks restricting the movement of people off the platforms and the effect this will have on safety, time in the station and reduced train service. Is there any experience from other cities on this problem? What about MSG on Penn Station? Can we learn anything from problems elsewhere?
- Subject: Re: Toronto's Plan to build arena on Union Station
- Message Number: 754949
- Posted by: John
- Date: Wed May 14 22:45:44 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Toronto's Plan to build arena on Union Station posted by Stephen Hodd on May 14, 1997 at 10:35:30: Well, I wouldn't worry too much. Madison Square Garden is directly over Penn Station in midtown Manhattan.

Thread title: Queensboro Bridge (754938)
Started on Wed May 14 14:13:44 1997, by Shig

Subject: Queensboro Bridge
Message Number: 754938
Posted by: Shig
Date: Wed May 14 14:13:44 1997

Does/Did Queensboro Bridge connecting Manhattan and Queens have subway tracks? When I visited NYC last summer, the N and R trains seemed to run through the tunnel under the bridge.
- Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
- Message Number: 754939
- Posted by: Peter Rosa
- Date: Wed May 14 14:34:44 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Queensboro Bridge posted by Shig on May 14, 1997 at 14:13:44: While there never were any subway lines across the Queensboro Bridge, a trolley line - the last one in the city - ran over it until service ended in 1957. Remnants of the old trolley terminal are still visible on the Manhattan side.
  - Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
  - Message Number: 754940
  - Posted by: John M
  - Date: Wed May 14 15:13:42 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Queensboro Bridge posted by Shig on May 14, 1997 at 14:13:44: The 2nd Av El used to run over it to Flushing & Astoria. THe Bridge couldn't handle the wait of the N/R too.
    - Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
    - Message Number: 754946
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Wed May 14 22:37:56 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Queensboro Bridge posted by Shig on May 14, 1997 at 14:13:44: According to "The Tracks of New York" vol. #3, two lines actually used the Queensboro Bridge. The #s 3 & 4 lines both originated at the South Ferry terminal, and proceeded along the 2nd Ave el. The #3 to Astoria and the #4 to Corona
      - Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
      - Message Number: 754948
      - Posted by: John
      - Date: Wed May 14 22:43:13 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Peter Rosa on May 14, 1997 at 14:34:44: I know that there are tracks on the Queensboro Bridge. And I know that they are not used. However, about two or three years ago, I was taking the N train to Astoria from Manhattan and it actually did travel over the Queensboro Bridge. Why did this happen?
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754956
        Posted by: Yoon Jae Lee
        Date: Thu May 15 01:00:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:43:13: There are no tracks that go over the bridge noawdays. You must be mistaking the Queensboro for another bridge perhaps the Manhattan Bridge the only bridge N trains ever cross. THere used to be el tracks connecting to 2 Ave el and a trollry line? as well.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754963
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 22 00:18:27 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 18, 1997 at 14:14:06: Don't be so sure that you'll get a straight answer. Actually, you've stumbled onto one of the MTAs most carefully guarded sectrets. In fact, I worry about telling you this because two other people who talked about the secret have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. What the MTA does not want you to know is that the tracks that once crossed the Queensboro bridge are still there. They are under the outer roadway on the north side of the bridge. Now for the surprise, the outer roadway is retractable. When the outer roadway is retracted, the tracks are useable. The signals are on spring loaded hinges and pop right up, ready for use. Once a month, an 'N' train is taken out of service after the PM rush hour and lays up north of of 57th Street & Bway. About 11 PM, the outer roadway on the bridge is closed, presumably for construction. Four 300 HP motors under the bridge pull in the roadway. Then with a flick of a switch, the 600 volts are applied to the 3rd rail and the train starts over the bridge to keep the rails polished. You obviously were on the rail polisher. Did you fall asleep and were overlooked by the crew or did you hide in a cab? Now, as to why all the secret. The MTA forgot about these tracks and in the 60s, spent $3 billion on the 63rd St. tunnel. After the tunnel was 3/4 complete, a junior project engineer found the tracks on an old drawing. He called it to the attention of the MTA chairman and later that year, he was never heard of again. The MTA plans to stage an accident in the year 2002. They intend to have a Circle Liner sink right over the tunnel, cracking and flooding it. Once they collect the insurance from the Circle Line, they will decide to rebuild the bridge connection rather than a new tunnel. Everyone will be amazed how fast they get it done too. In the meantime, the MTA members will split the insurance proceeds 8 ways and will suddenly retire. Now that you know the truth, you too are at risk. If I were you, I'd stop writing letters and keep quiet...
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754964
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Thu May 22 00:18:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 18, 1997 at 14:14:06: Don't be so sure that you'll get a straight answer. Actually, you've stumbled onto one of the MTAs most carefully guarded sectrets. In fact, I worry about telling you this because two other people who talked about the secret have disappeared under mysterious circumstances. What the MTA does not want you to know is that the tracks that once crossed the Queensboro bridge are still there. They are under the outer roadway on the north side of the bridge. Now for the surprise, the outer roadway is retractable. When the outer roadway is retracted, the tracks are useable. The signals are on spring loaded hinges and pop right up, ready for use. Once a month, an 'N' train is taken out of service after the PM rush hour and lays up north of of 57th Street & Bway. About 11 PM, the outer roadway on the bridge is closed, presumably for construction. Four 300 HP motors under the bridge pull in the roadway. Then with a flick of a switch, the 600 volts are applied to the 3rd rail and the train starts over the bridge to keep the rails polished. You obviously were on the rail polisher. Did you fall asleep and were overlooked by the crew or did you hide in a cab? Now, as to why all the secret. The MTA forgot about these tracks and in the 60s, spent $3 billion on the 63rd St. tunnel. After the tunnel was 3/4 complete, a junior project engineer found the tracks on an old drawing. He called it to the attention of the MTA chairman and later that year, he was never heard of again. The MTA plans to stage an accident in the year 2002. They intend to have a Circle Liner sink right over the tunnel, cracking and flooding it. Once they collect the insurance from the Circle Line, they will decide to rebuild the bridge connection rather than a new tunnel. Everyone will be amazed how fast they get it done too. In the meantime, the MTA members will split the insurance proceeds 8 ways and will suddenly retire. Now that you know the truth, you too are at risk. If I were you, I'd stop writing letters and keep quiet...
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754965
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Thu May 22 00:59:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 19, 1997 at 21:11:13: Read above
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754966
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Thu May 22 01:18:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by MJS on May 21, 1997 at 22:33:38: if what jim sayes is true then wy in the hell hasent somebody noticed it on the bridge?
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754970
        Posted by: Dan Weissmann
        Date: Thu May 22 13:43:19 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Jim on May 22, 1997 at 00:18:39: Hey, Jim. I LOVE your sense of humour. Sounds like LeCarre a la MTA.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754973
        Posted by: John
        Date: Thu May 22 15:02:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Jim on May 22, 1997 at 00:18:39: A few things, Jim, that just don't make sense. Now, you said that the tracks were on the north side of the bridge, and that is the side that my train crossed over. But you said that the Transit Authority doesn't want anybody to know about it. If that's the case, why did my train cross the bridge in the middle of the day with a semi-full load of passengers? Second, I'm not buying the fact that the TA forgot about the tracks on the bridge. How could something like that occur? Third, how the hell do you know so much about this? How do you know what the TA plans to do about the tunnel? How do you know it will take place in 2002? Besides, isn't the 63rd Street tunnel under the floor of the East River? How do you get a boat to destroy a tunnel that's under the bottom of the water? After reading your post, I have come up with two possabilities. Either you work for the Transit Authority and are behind their filthy conspiracy, or you are just full of shit.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754999
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 23 21:16:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Zack on May 22, 1997 at 01:18:39: Don't you get it, IT ISN'T TRUE, if there were tracks on the bridge to this day, because there were prior to 1942, there simply can't be any connections between the N and such hidden tracks.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755003
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 23 21:39:47 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 22, 1997 at 15:02:46: He's full of shit just like you. BTW, the tunnel was built halfway under the riverbed, not directly under it.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755004
        Posted by: John
        Date: Fri May 23 21:41:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by M.J.S. on May 23, 1997 at 21:16:49: Just why can't there be? Oh, by the way - I'm sorry I was hard on you, Jim, but it is just not easy for me to buy what you were saying. It sounds like a scene from the Twilight Zone, or something like that. Retractable roadway? Trains running over the tracks just to keep the tracks polished? Extreme secrecy? Mysterious dissappearences of people who know about the tracks? It just doesn't sound right.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755009
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Fri May 23 23:22:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 23, 1997 at 21:41:59: i wouldent have a clue. now if somebody would go scaling down the side of the bridge the tracks are suppose to be on we'll find out for shure.(any voulenteers?) (P.S) there should be an entire section at N.Y.C.S.R dedicated to this "rumor"
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755012
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Sat May 24 00:29:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by M.J.S. on May 23, 1997 at 21:39:47: No, I'm not really full of anything. However, when faced with a person who has taken a totally unreasonable point of view (as I believe that John has) , I chose to be humorous, albiet my type of humor, to point out the just how unreasonable that point of view is. I think that 99.9% of us will agree that there are no trains on the Queensboro bridge now. I also think all but you and John understood that I was trying to be outrageous. I'm sorry that you did not appreciate my sense of humor.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755020
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Sat May 24 14:31:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Jim on May 24, 1997 at 00:29:43: I'm sorry if you thought I didn't like this story (I really did) I just critisized John for continuing with his bogus story, what he must have meant by full of shit (and what I meant) was that your story (like his) was bogus (hence: shit). Sorry if I offended anyone.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755028
        Posted by: Dan Schwartz
        Date: Sun May 25 00:27:29 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Jim on May 22, 1997 at 00:18:39: All kidding aside, while riding an "N" train a few days ago I looked across at the north outer roadway of the bridge and I DID see what appeared to be tracks on it. Were the remnants of the original tracks simply covered over with concrete or asphalt, to be revealed again when the paving is removed by construction? I know that trolley tracks sometimes pop up on streets this way. I would have thought that on a bridge they would not want to leave extra weight such as unused rails, but I guess it's possible. Or were the "rails" I saw just part of the construction equipment, perhaps part of a form into which new concrete will be poured?
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 755043
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun May 25 23:24:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Dan Schwartz on May 25, 1997 at 00:27:29: Please ...... Lets not get the ball rolling again !!!
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753882
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Thu May 15 14:02:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:43:13: The 2nd Avenue EL used to have a connection to the Queensboro Bridge for service to Astoria and Flushing. It was discontinued in the early 40s, I believe. After that, no other trains crossed the bridge. The last trolley in NY crossed the Queensboro until 1956, I think. There used to be a stop at the center of the bridge for Welfare (now Roosevelt) Island. There are currently no tracks across the Queensboro Bridge, although some track structure can be seen from the south end of the Queensboro Plaza station on the N/R/7. The N/R may have been rerouted onto the North side of the Manhattan Bridge when you rode it that day for track work. The tracks on the south side of the Manhattan Brodge have not been used for years as the MTA awaits DOT work to be completed on the bridge sometime in the next millenium. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753884
        Posted by: John
        Date: Thu May 15 17:00:45 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Yoon Jae Lee on May 15, 1997 at 01:00:48: No, guys, no. I'm POSITIVE it was the Queensboro Bridge. You keep saying that no trains have used it for decades, but I'm telling you - THE TRAIN I WAS ON DID CROSS THE QUEENSBORO BRIDGE!! I'm sure of it because I am a New York native and I can pick out any bridge in a heartbeat. Also, I had boarded at 57th Street, was going to Astoria, and while crossing the bridge, Roosevelt Island was right below me. So it was definately the Queensboro Bridge. It wasn't a dream. I wasn't intoxicated. Was I on some kind of Phantom Train or something?
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753885
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Thu May 15 17:40:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 15, 1997 at 17:00:45: Maybe your brain mixed some events together, like: A. Riding the N B. Riding the RI Tram C. Riding over a bridge
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753886
        Posted by: John
        Date: Thu May 15 21:17:07 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by M.J.S. on May 15, 1997 at 17:40:35: Maybe my brain mixed up some events? Maybe your's did! I don't mean to be rude, or anything, but I don't know why it's so hard for you people to accept that my train crossed the Queensboro Bridge. I am not a lunitic. I don't have any emotional problems, I don't have a drinking problem, likewise a drug problem. I am a normal human being and I definatley did not mix up any events, because I remember it very clearly. I would also known if I had ridden the tram as opposed to taking the subway. I was in a subway car. I was on the N train. I was going to Astoria. It was in the middle of the day on a Sunday. I was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I was not sleepy. The year was 1995. I repeat myself once more -- MY TRAIN TRAVELLED OVER THE QUEENSBORO BRIDGE. NO EXCEPTIONS. I'M NOT LYING. AND DON'T CONTRADICT ME OR TRY TO CONVINCE ME THAT I'M WRONG BECAUSE I'M NOT!!!!
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753888
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 15 22:39:53 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:43:13: Since the N train uses the 60th Street tunnel and there are no tracks on the Queensboro Bridge, I think we are talking major Twilight Zone episodes here. Actually, back then, the only significant bridge that the N crossed was the Manhattan Bridge before tha south side of the bridge was closed to train traffic.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753889
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 15 22:50:31 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 15, 1997 at 21:17:07: Listen, my friend. I have been with the NYCT for more than 20 years. Please trust me, it could not have been the N train on the Queensboro bridge for the following reasons. 1. There are no tracks on the bridge. 2. There is no connection from the BMT in Manhattan, to the bridge. 3. There is no connection with the Astoria Line from the bridge. Please consider the alternatives; 1) Wrong bridge? 2) Dream? 3) Drug flashback? 4) You went back in time 50+ years? 5) You were on a bus? All kidding aside, trust me, YOU WERE NOT ON THE 'N' OR ANY OTHER TRAIN ON THE QUEENSBORO BRIDGE.....
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753895
        Posted by: John
        Date: Fri May 16 06:50:37 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Steve on May 15, 1997 at 22:50:31: Alright. I give up, because obviously, I'm not getting anything except suggestions that I'm either crazy or just full of shit. But rest assured - I'm not done. I am going to find out just what happened that day once and for all. Just you wait . . . However, on the rare (almost impossable) chance that it wasn't the Queensboro Bridge, what other tracks are there over the East River, beside the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges?
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753902
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Fri May 16 12:01:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 16, 1997 at 06:50:37: To my knowledge, there are no other bridges. The Brooklyn Bridge also had tracks at one time but they are also long gone. There are several river tunnels though. 63rd St - Q & B lines 60th St - R - N lines 53rd St - E & F lines Steinway St. - #7 line 14th St - L line Montague Street - M, N, & R lines Pineapple St. - F Line (Manhattan - Bklyn) Jouralemon St - A & C lines (Manhattan - Brooklyn) The West side IRT tunnel from Manhattan - Brooklyn The East Side IRT tunnel from Manhattan - Brooklyn
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753904
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 16 14:29:47 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 15, 1997 at 21:17:07: THERE IS NO WAY POSSIBLE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT!!!
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753905
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 16 14:36:45 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Steve on May 16, 1997 at 12:01:10: I decided to quote Sorry for acting like a fact cop >63rd St - Q & B lines Correct >60th St - R - N lines Correct >53rd St - E & F lines Correct >Steinway St. - #7 line Correct >14th St - L line Correct >Montague Street - M, N, & R lines Correct >Pineapple St. - F Line (Manhattan - Bklyn) Wrong Fruit and train, the F tunnel is called the Rutgers Street Tunnel >Jouralemon St - A & C lines (Manhattan - Brooklyn) Wrong Trains, the Cranberry Street Tunnel carries the A&C >The West side IRT tunnel from Manhattan - Brooklyn It has a name: Clark Street Tunnel >The East Side IRT tunnel from Manhattan - Brooklyn This would be the Joralemon Street Tunnel
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753915
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Fri May 16 21:19:58 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by M.J.S. on May 16, 1997 at 14:36:45: Thanks for the correction. I could never keep my tunnels straight. Now for extra credit, name the 5 LIRR tunnels into Manhattan.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753939
        Posted by: John
        Date: Sun May 18 14:14:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 16, 1997 at 06:50:37: I sent a letter to the chairman of the MTA about this and I am still waiting for a response. Once I get it, I'll say exactly what happened.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753942
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Mon May 19 20:32:32 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 18, 1997 at 14:14:06: Would it be quicker to just see the Queensborough bridge for yourself? Maybe even ride a bus or tram for a closeup view.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 753943
        Posted by: John
        Date: Mon May 19 21:11:13 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Andrew Huie on May 19, 1997 at 20:32:32: Yeah, but I want a full explanation from an authority figure.
        
        Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge
        Message Number: 754001
        Posted by: MJS
        Date: Wed May 21 22:33:38 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 19, 1997 at 21:11:13: Look, stop, you DIDN'T RIDE OVER THE QUEENSBOROUGH BRIDGE!!! live with it.

Thread title: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! (754941)
Started on Wed May 14 16:51:52 1997, by Bryan Layne

Subject: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
Message Number: 754941
Posted by: Bryan Layne
Date: Wed May 14 16:51:52 1997

Did you here yet that PATH has reported record ridership for last year.Its the highest since 1948,with boardings up 1.3 million to 60.7 million!!
- Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
- Message Number: 754947
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Wed May 14 22:40:20 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Bryan Layne on May 14, 1997 at 16:51:52: Yes, and at only $1.00 per ride, one of the most highly subsidized railroads in the country.
  - Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
  - Message Number: 754957
  - Posted by: Nathan
  - Date: Thu May 15 03:41:04 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Steve on May 14, 1997 at 22:40:20: Mmmmmm, subsidy... does anyone know the actual subsidy PATH recieves each year? Is PATH considering to purchase new rolling stock in the near future? The trains are kinda outdated...
    - Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
    - Message Number: 754962
    - Posted by: Joe Barnes
    - Date: Thu May 15 13:09:40 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Nathan on May 15, 1997 at 03:41:04: Don't recall the exact level of subsidy, but it is enormous. The Port Authority siphons a huge amount taken in with George Washington Bridge tolls to the P.A.T.H. system. Ironically (or is it consistently?) the PA has allowed its own George Washington Bridge Bus Station to go to seed.
      - Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
      - Message Number: 753880
      - Posted by: David Pirmann
      - Date: Thu May 15 13:49:41 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Nathan on May 15, 1997 at 03:41:04: I believe PATH is planning to place an order of new cars either late this year or next. This would allow them to scrap the 1964-1967 PA-1 and PA-2 class cars. The PA-3 class cars from 1972 would be overhauled. Presumably the new cars (PA-5?) would be patterened after the mid-80's PA-4 series, with three doors per side instead of two as on the PA-1,2,3 series.
        
        Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
        Message Number: 753893
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Thu May 15 23:48:13 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Nathan on May 15, 1997 at 03:41:04: Outdated??? Where else can you hear the air brake sound that the R-38/40/42 used to make? 8-)
        
        Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
        Message Number: 753909
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 16 14:47:11 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Andrew Huie on May 15, 1997 at 23:48:13: Is that supposed to be a good thing?
        
        Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
        Message Number: 753916
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Fri May 16 22:50:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by M.J.S. on May 16, 1997 at 14:47:11: Well, in a nostalgic way it's kind of nice to hear that sound again.
        
        Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
        Message Number: 753934
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun May 18 01:23:14 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Andrew Huie on May 15, 1997 at 23:48:13: What are you referring to? What is the difference between the R-38/40/42 sounds now and when they were built. The brake system has not essentially been changed. The only cars which have had real brake system changes (and brake sounds) are the R-44 & R-46.
        
        Subject: Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!!
        Message Number: 753940
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Mon May 19 20:29:32 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Steve on May 18, 1997 at 01:23:14: For some reason, the air brake sound has been changed. I don't remember when the sound changed, but back in the 70's the R38/40/42 sound was the same as PA-1/2/3. This in turn was different from the R17/19/21/22 etc., which was much more like a hiss.

Thread title: San Francisco Muni (754943)
Started on Wed May 14 17:59:55 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: San Francisco Muni
Message Number: 754943
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Wed May 14 17:59:55 1997

Are there any good maps of the Muni on the Web? Also, are there any stations on the muni? Every map of it I see, has stations printed only on one line. --Respond Please
- Subject: Re: San Francisco Muni
- Message Number: 754960
- Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
- Date: Thu May 15 09:22:21 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]San Francisco Muni posted by Brian Jakosz on May 14, 1997 at 17:59:55: MUNI has several stations in the subway under Market St. and two in the Twin Peaks Tunnel. The M-Ocean View line has platforms along its private right-of-way sections. All the other lines are street running with the usual stops every few blocks, including the surface tracks on Market St. (F), Ingleside(K), Church(J), Taraval(L), and Judah(N). Lines J, K, and M share an off street terminal at BART's Balboa Park Station. BART follows Mission St. into Downtown, and then underpins the MUNI subway down Market St. Bart has about 8 stops total in SF, five of which are co-located with MUNI subway stops. Hope this helps!
  - Subject: Re: San Francisco Muni
  - Message Number: 756829
  - Posted by: Jay Yudof
  - Date: Mon Aug 25 19:53:35 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: San Francisco Muni posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 15, 1997 at 09:22:21: For what its worth, I had a day to visit SF last month, and it was a railfan's dream (OK, service was slow at night and a subway entrance with high traffic was closwed, e'est la vie). For a $6 daypass bought from a cable car conductor (the system has 3-day, 1-week, 1-month passes, etc.), I was able to ride: o cable cars o surface trolleys (PCCs on Market St.) o modern LRT on private ROW and subway o trackless trolleys (monolith and articulated) o diesel busses (monolith and articulated) I even got to do all this and play tourist with my wife, who is not a rail fan. the town is also served by the oft-discussed BART, by heavy rail commuter service (CalTrain; diesels pulling double-deckers into the SF depot), and by commuter ferries. Looking forward to a return trip.

Thread title: Re: Tunnel Wash Train (754945)
Started on Wed May 14 22:29:19 1997, by Steve

Subject: Re: Tunnel Wash Train
Message Number: 754945
Posted by: Steve
Date: Wed May 14 22:29:19 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Vacuum Train posted by Joshua Yes, the Vacuum Train is back!! Caesar on May 14, 1997 at 18:24:13: Yes, there is a tunnel wash train that makes its' rounds periodically throughout the system.
- Subject: Re: Tunnel Wash Train
- Message Number: 753921
- Posted by: Zack
- Date: Fri May 16 23:28:30 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Tunnel Wash Train posted by Steve on May 14, 1997 at 22:29:19: is there any pictures of it?

Thread title: Coney Island Station (754954)
Started on Wed May 14 22:58:30 1997, by John

Subject: Coney Island Station
Message Number: 754954
Posted by: John
Date: Wed May 14 22:58:30 1997

I haven't been to the Coney Island station very recently (last I was there was maybe a year ago), but I don't have particularly good memories of that station. Is the TA doing anything about the reeking smell of piss? What about the restroom? The restroom is like a rat's nest. Actually, the whole station is like a rats' nest. I also had a "run-into" experience at that restroom. See, the stalls have been removed, leaving the toilet bowls in the open. Quite a few years back (probably in the late 1970s), I entered the restroom, and there was a guy takin' a shit. "Yo, man, get the f--- outta here!" he hollered. Needless to say, I was on the B train two seconds later.
- Subject: Re: Coney Island Station
- Message Number: 753891
- Posted by: Andrew Huie
- Date: Thu May 15 23:42:02 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Coney Island Station posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:58:30: It probably reeks somewhat less than before, but it's still pretty cruddy. That is one station in dire need of rehabilitation, so long as they keep the old BMT emblems on the front. I have a question about the station though -- to the left of the main entrance (not the one with the bus loop), facing outwards, there is apparently another gate leading to the outside, under the culver/brighton els. Was this exit strictly for transit employees only, or was this for something else?

Thread title: broad channel ind new layup track relay track (754955)
Started on Thu May 15 00:27:01 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: broad channel ind new layup track relay track
Message Number: 754955
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Thu May 15 00:27:01 1997

does anyone have details,,drawings,,of the new layup track north of broad channel ,up for bidding now,,by the mta
- Subject: Re: broad channel ind new layup track relay track
- Message Number: 754961
- Posted by: Unknown
- Date: Thu May 15 12:49:25 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]broad channel ind new layup track relay track posted by steve lowenthal on May 15, 1997 at 00:27:01: No! Call (718)-330-1234 for info.

Thread title: Red Birds (753881)
Started on Thu May 15 13:57:09 1997, by Jim

Subject: Red Birds
Message Number: 753881
Posted by: Jim
Date: Thu May 15 13:57:09 1997

Why is the TA planning to scrap the Corona Redbird fleet when the MDBF is in excess of 150,000 miles? Does this make sense?
- Subject: Re: Red Birds
- Message Number: 753883
- Posted by: John
- Date: Thu May 15 16:45:42 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Red Birds posted by Jim on May 15, 1997 at 13:57:09: Nope. Absolutly none. Then again, this is the Transit Authority - nothing they do makes any sense. If they are going to retire the trains, at least keep them rather than scrapping them, or even better, ship them to a city that is in need of equipment for a new subway (if the equipment is compatable).
  - Subject: Re: Red Birds
  - Message Number: 753892
  - Posted by: Andrew Huie
  - Date: Thu May 15 23:45:15 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Red Birds posted by Jim on May 15, 1997 at 13:57:09: That's interesting - a few years back the flushing line cars were among the worst. I guess they finally shaped up. They will probably retire them simply because they no longer want to paint them, i.e., a stainless steel fleet would cost less maintenance-wise.
    - Subject: Re: Red Birds
    - Message Number: 753896
    - Posted by: Julio Perez
    - Date: Fri May 16 07:09:10 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Red Birds posted by Jim on May 15, 1997 at 13:57:09: So, what is the Flushing line (7) getting in terms of equipment? R110Bs, or the R14xs? Will they be configured in 10-car or 11-car sets?
      - Subject: Re: Red Birds
      - Message Number: 753903
      - Posted by: Paul
      - Date: Fri May 16 12:09:23 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Red Birds posted by Jim on May 15, 1997 at 13:57:09: I know what MDBF is but I'd like to know who's crunching the numbers? I ride the #7 line 5 days per week from Main St. to GCS. The line stinks, the cars stink and the stations stink. The only way that line is getting those kind of numbers is if someone is paying someone off.
        
        Subject: Re: Red Birds
        Message Number: 753906
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 16 14:42:55 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Red Birds posted by Jim on May 15, 1997 at 13:57:09: The R-36 and possibly R-33 will not be scrapped, they will be transferred to replace the R26/28/29.
        
        Subject: Re: Red Birds
        Message Number: 753910
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Fri May 16 14:51:58 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Red Birds posted by M.J.S. on May 16, 1997 at 14:42:55: To clarify what I said, I meant the mainline R33s not the R33 Flushing single units. The single don't have Air Conditioning and can't get them.
        
        Subject: Re: Red Birds
        Message Number: 753925
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Sat May 17 20:54:14 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Red Birds posted by John on May 15, 1997 at 16:45:42: Boston's MTA bought new cars for its Cambridge-Dorchester line in 1962-63, about the same time the R33-36 cars arrived on the Flushing Line. They have already met the torch, partly because they were the worst cars the MTA (and the El and the MBTA) ever bought, and partly because the MBTA constantly tried to upgrade them to be compatable with the later cars purchased for the Quincy - Braintree extension. I have probably ridden the 7 line more than any other line in NYC, and the cars on that line are what rapid transit cars are supposed to be: Boxes that move people. They go and they stop and the doors open and close - nothing more is necessary. AC is great (as long as you are in the car and not on the platform. The second law of thermodynamics says that the you can't reduce the entropy of something (cool it) without increasing the entropy of everything else (heat it). Everything else in this case is the subway. The cars are fine - especially the R-33s. Oh by the way, I saw an interesting train last June, 11 cars all R-33 singles (it wasn't a hot day)!
        
        Subject: Re: Red Birds
        Message Number: 753955
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Tue May 20 02:46:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Red Birds posted by John on May 15, 1997 at 16:45:42: Ack! Don't give those cars to cities that are building new subways!!! As much as other cities would love to have rumbling, lurching, ex-NYC subway cars screeching beneath their streets! IF it is time to scrap the cars, scrap the cars! In cities that are just building Rapid Transit lines it is crucial to make the system as attractive (not goldplated) as it can be in order to lure people out of their cars. The (I dare use the word ancient) utilitarian NYC cars would scare off potential riders. Besides, that would definetly say something about a city that had a brand new subway with ex-New York rolling stock!!! Give them luxury!!! Make the trains smooth, carpeted, automatic (?).

Thread title: Hell Gate Bridge (was Re: Queensboro Bridge) (753897)
Started on Fri May 16 07:15:45 1997, by Julio Perez

Subject: Hell Gate Bridge (was Re: Queensboro Bridge)
Message Number: 753897
Posted by: Julio Perez
Date: Fri May 16 07:15:45 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by John on May 16, 1997 at 06:50:37: Well, there's the Hell Gate Bridge running over the East River and just north of the Triboro. But, that's a line for freight and other commuter train traffic, not subway.

Thread title: Correction to Re: Red Birds (753899)
Started on Fri May 16 07:36:04 1997, by Julio Perez

Subject: Correction to Re: Red Birds
Message Number: 753899
Posted by: Julio Perez
Date: Fri May 16 07:36:04 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Red Birds posted by Julio Perez on May 16, 1997 at 07:09:10: Okay, I screwed up in my previous post in this thread. In terms of possible replacements for the R33/36 series on the 7, I meant the R110A and _not_ the R110B, the latter being for IND/BMT use. But I also mentioned R14x (R143???) as a possible alternative. Any info on the replacement units? Any picutres/drawings/schematics of the R14x prototypes yet?
- Subject: Re: Correction to Re: Red Birds
- Message Number: 753907
- Posted by: M.J.S.
- Date: Fri May 16 14:44:24 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Correction to Re: Red Birds posted by Julio Perez on May 16, 1997 at 07:36:04: How can they get R110As (really R130) THERE ARE ONLY 10 OF THEM!
  - Subject: Re: Correction to Re: Red Birds
  - Message Number: 753908
  - Posted by: M.J.S.
  - Date: Fri May 16 14:45:35 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Correction to Re: Red Birds posted by Julio Perez on May 16, 1997 at 07:36:04: The R143 is for the B division (IND/BMT) the R142 is for the A division (IRT).

Thread title: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs (753911)
Started on Fri May 16 18:02:06 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs
Message Number: 753911
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Fri May 16 18:02:06 1997

The Chicago Transit Authority has cut 10 low riderdhip bus routes and plans to cut overnight service in the future and on one branch of a rail route they plan to have no service on the week-end. Also They are planning some other cuts. What do you think of this?????
- Subject: Re: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs
- Message Number: 753913
- Posted by: Bryan Layne
- Date: Fri May 16 18:48:16 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs posted by Brian Jakosz on May 16, 1997 at 18:02:06: It sucks, thats what I think of it.The CTA is in a bind and now more than ever need the state's help.
  - Subject: Re: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs
  - Message Number: 753914
  - Posted by: Bryan Layne
  - Date: Fri May 16 18:48:33 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs posted by Brian Jakosz on May 16, 1997 at 18:02:06: It sucks, thats what I think of it.The CTA is in a bind and now more than ever need the state's help.
    - Subject: Re: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs
    - Message Number: 753918
    - Posted by: steve lowenthal
    - Date: Fri May 16 23:05:25 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs posted by Brian Jakosz on May 16, 1997 at 18:02:06: what bus lines and subway lines are affected???
      - Subject: Re: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs
      - Message Number: 753919
      - Posted by: steve lowenthal
      - Date: Fri May 16 23:06:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs posted by Brian Jakosz on May 16, 1997 at 18:02:06: what bus lines and subway lines are affected???,,,do u have further details of all changes

Thread title: new jersey transit track map (753917)
Started on Fri May 16 23:04:01 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: new jersey transit track map
Message Number: 753917
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Fri May 16 23:04:01 1997

i am looking for updated track maps of the njt,,,i have maps dated approx 1991,,,many new interlockings and area changes ,,ie---newark station ,portal ,bergen,,and swift interlocking areas

Thread title: BART "hidden express track" (753922)
Started on Sat May 17 00:55:17 1997, by Justin

Subject: BART "hidden express track"
Message Number: 753922
Posted by: Justin
Date: Sat May 17 00:55:17 1997

Any Bay Area railfans out there? Michael Adler's BART track map shows a fourth "hidden express track" under Oakland B'way, in addition to the three tracks in regular service. Is this for real, or just a persistent rumor? I can only see three tunnel portals heading southward from MacArthur. It seems that the current awkward 2-and-1 arrangement would've been eliminated long ago if this fourth track existed.
- Subject: Re: BART "hidden express track"
- Message Number: 753944
- Posted by: steve lowenthal
- Date: Mon May 19 22:06:58 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]BART "hidden express track" posted by Justin on May 17, 1997 at 00:55:17: check out the loren petrich page
  - Subject: Re: BART "hidden express track"
  - Message Number: 753946
  - Posted by: steve lowenthal
  - Date: Mon May 19 22:09:03 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]BART "hidden express track" posted by Justin on May 17, 1997 at 00:55:17: the railroad-yard page,,,u might find some other stuff there,,,,also

Thread title: ROCHESTER SUBWAY ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL (753924)
Started on Sat May 17 19:37:37 1997, by FRED WELLMAN

Subject: ROCHESTER SUBWAY ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL
Message Number: 753924
Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
Date: Sat May 17 19:37:37 1997

In the past I have read questions about the Rochester subway. On Monday may 19th from 6-7AM The History Channel THC will be showing "The End of the Line" the Rochester Subway.

Thread title: Re: Five LIRR Tunnels Into Manhattan!?! (753926)
Started on Sat May 17 22:51:00 1997, by Justin

Subject: Re: Five LIRR Tunnels Into Manhattan!?!
Message Number: 753926
Posted by: Justin
Date: Sat May 17 22:51:00 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Steve on May 16, 1997 at 21:19:58: I've got five, but perhaps I'm cheating a little: (1,2) Two Pennsylvania tubes from Hoboken to 34th Street (3,4) Two tubes (name?) from 34th Street to Sunnyside Yard (5) 63rd Street tube, lower level, which is currently unused
- Subject: Re: Five LIRR Tunnels Into Manhattan!?!
- Message Number: 753935
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Sun May 18 01:29:57 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Five LIRR Tunnels Into Manhattan!?! posted by Justin on May 17, 1997 at 22:51:00: Nope!! You are correct about the 63rd street lower level but there are 4 tunnels from Sunnyside yard to Manhattan, each one called by a specific name.

Thread title: 10 bus routes (753927)
Started on Sat May 17 22:52:38 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: 10 bus routes
Message Number: 753927
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Sat May 17 22:52:38 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: CTA Makes Dramatic cut backs posted by steve lowenthal on May 16, 1997 at 23:05:25: 10 CTa bus routes have already been cut and overnight rail service being cut is an idea for the future. For more info visit the Cta web page at Transitchicago.com they have planned cut backs for the fall listed in the news section, but to ask about the 10 routes already cut, E-mail them, CTAhelp@transitchicago.com They will take about two weeks to reply so be patient

Thread title: Coney Island Station -Good News/Bad News (753936)
Started on Sun May 18 01:44:28 1997, by Steve

Subject: Coney Island Station -Good News/Bad News
Message Number: 753936
Posted by: Steve
Date: Sun May 18 01:44:28 1997

In Reply to: [6]Coney Island Station posted by John on May 14, 1997 at 22:58:30: I've been to the Stillwell Ave Station as recently as this week and, no, things there have not significantly improved. There is some good news though. The TA is planning to rebuild the Stillwell Ave Station in conjunction witht he completion of the 63rd St. connection. This will include rebuilding of the platforms and re-alignment of the tracks to permit additional trackage to be installed. As for the bad news, you could install carpet in the station mezzanine, you can pipe in music and hang world-class art on the walls. The people will still be the people and some of them are the most vile, filthy miscreants that ever crawled over the face of the earth. No station facelift will change that.
- Subject: Re: Coney Island Station -Good News/Bad News
- Message Number: 753953
- Posted by: Nathan
- Date: Tue May 20 02:34:44 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Coney Island Station -Good News/Bad News posted by Steve on May 18, 1997 at 01:44:28: Hey Hey! let's not be too nasty about those "people". If NYC-MTA wanted to get rid of the perhaps shady characters who lurk in the stations they could hire part time security gaurds, as a deterrent... (Ok, it will cost money and most of the gaurds will be dead within the week, but still, it;s a deterrent!)

Thread title: A train to the Javits (753937)
Started on Sun May 18 11:49:37 1997, by Jerrod Schlieden

Subject: A train to the Javits
Message Number: 753937
Posted by: Jerrod Schlieden
Date: Sun May 18 11:49:37 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: What does the NYC Metro need most in terms of Transit? posted by John on May 08, 1997 at 23:36:54: As much as I agree with direct airport service and 2nd Avenue service, I'm glad somebody brought up how much we need Javits sevice. To get there I have to take the 1 uptown and then wakl 4 blocks. It's a real pain.
- Subject: Re: A train to the Javits
- Message Number: 753938
- Posted by: Jerrod Schlieden
- Date: Sun May 18 11:52:30 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]A train to the Javits posted by Jerrod Schlieden on May 18, 1997 at 11:49:37: Oops!! I meant "walk", not "wakl". Plus service to parts of Staten Island not served by rapid transit would be great.

Thread title: Where is NJT-1 these days? (753945)
Started on Mon May 19 22:07:05 1997, by Rich Ahrens

Subject: Where is NJT-1 these days?
Message Number: 753945
Posted by: Rich Ahrens
Date: Mon May 19 22:07:05 1997

I expected to see NJ Transit's Parlor Car NJT-1 at the Hoboken Festival this year, but it was a no-show. Anyone know where it's hiding these days?
- Subject: Re: Where is NJT-1 these days?
- Message Number: 753967
- Posted by: John
- Date: Tue May 20 21:26:10 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Where is NJT-1 these days? posted by Rich Ahrens on May 19, 1997 at 22:07:05: Yeah, you know I was looking for it, too. I think that this year, the Pennsylvania Railroad cars were in the place that NJT-1 usually is. Speaking of the Hoboken Festival, I can see plenty of room for improvement. The first thing is that Amtrak should participate (they did at one time . . . what happened?). In addition to the cars in revenue service, PATH should also have some of their retired trains on display, and so should the Transit Authority - the TA should have a display of modern and older subway trains. Yep - there is plenty of room for improvement.

Thread title: track maps of the washington dc metro (753947)
Started on Mon May 19 22:10:58 1997, by steve lowenthal

Subject: track maps of the washington dc metro
Message Number: 753947
Posted by: steve lowenthal
Date: Mon May 19 22:10:58 1997

looking for large track maps of the dc metro,,,updated to 1997
- Subject: Re: track maps of the washington dc metro
- Message Number: 753956
- Posted by: Mark Greenwald
- Date: Tue May 20 09:52:01 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]track maps of the washington dc metro posted by steve lowenthal on May 19, 1997 at 22:10:58: The track map here within the New York city subway resources IS up to date. The next scheduled opening of a Metro segment is June 29th when the Blue Line extends to Franconia/Springfield in Virginia and the track map on the site has been adjusted to show this segment----Check it out

Thread title: NYT article on 6 line (753948)
Started on Mon May 19 22:59:01 1997, by ~airplane

Subject: NYT article on 6 line
Message Number: 753948
Posted by: ~airplane
Date: Mon May 19 22:59:01 1997

In case anyone missed it, there was a good article today in the New York Times on the overcrowding and other problems on the Lex. Ave. local on the front of the Metro section. They even managed to throw in something on the 2nd Avenue subway. I have a zip file of the article and all the pictures from the NYT on the Web (slightly modified so a local version works) if anyone wants to see it. Just send an e-mail. Note: long filenames.

Thread title: Brake System Sounds (753951)
Started on Mon May 19 23:52:15 1997, by Steve

Subject: Brake System Sounds
Message Number: 753951
Posted by: Steve
Date: Mon May 19 23:52:15 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: PATH Ridership Soars!!!! posted by Andrew Huie on May 19, 1997 at 20:29:32: The sound that the brakes make is dependent on two components in the brake system. The Release Magnet Valve and the J Relay Valve. The latter was changed, somewhat, when the TA moved away from steel brake shoes in favor of a composite type which is currently in use. This change might account for the slight differences you hear. TA cars use one of three different brake systems (excluding the R-110s). They use WABCO, NY AirBrake and Westcode. The WABCO & NY Airbrake sound almost identical. In fact, the R-32s use both systems and cannot be told apart by sound. But the Westcode, used on the R-44 sound completely different.
- Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
- Message Number: 753954
- Posted by: a person
- Date: Tue May 20 02:36:12 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Brake System Sounds posted by Steve on May 19, 1997 at 23:52:15: please speak english
  - Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
  - Message Number: 753957
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Tue May 20 10:56:28 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Brake System Sounds posted by a person on May 20, 1997 at 02:36:12: Which words didn't you understand?
    - Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
    - Message Number: 753960
    - Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
    - Date: Tue May 20 13:02:47 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Brake System Sounds posted by a person on May 20, 1997 at 02:36:12: The release ( and apply ) magnet valves operate to keep the straight air pipe pressure on each car at the same level as that in the first car. Its operation should not be very audible, since when it operates it triggers the relay valve. The latter matches the cylinder pressure to that in the straight air pipe. How the exhaust pipe leading from the relay valve is routed, the size of said pipe, and whether there is a muffler on that pipe are the biggest factors in brake sounds. Another is the size of the brake cylinders, and therefore the quantity of air released.
      - Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
      - Message Number: 753975
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Tue May 20 23:23:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Brake System Sounds posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 20, 1997 at 13:02:47: A good basic description of the SMEE brake system with one inaccuracy. The brake cylinder pressure is not matched to the straight air pressure. It is maintained at a pressure proportional to the SAP. The other determining factors are the position of the load sensor and the type of end brake device (clasp brakes or tread brakes).
        
        Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
        Message Number: 753978
        Posted by: a person
        Date: Wed May 21 11:23:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Brake System Sounds posted by Steve on May 20, 1997 at 23:23:20: Hmmmm, I see, very complicated. Why not use disk brakes?? Does any of the various cars in NY employ them? (I know the bombardier bi-level cars do) Or are you describing disk brakes and I am just so mechanically disinclined that I don't realise it...
        
        Subject: Re: Brake System Sounds
        Message Number: 753983
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 15:14:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Brake System Sounds posted by a person on May 21, 1997 at 11:23:46: Good question!! Actually, we are talking about any modern pneumatically controlled Air Brake System, regardless of what the End Brake Devices are. As of no, there are only 3 revenue cars in the NYCT system which use disc brakes. They are the 3 R-110B trailer cars. Because these cars have no motors, they have no dynamic brakes. To make up for the loss of dynamic brake, disk brake were added to the tread brakes.

Thread title: Possible PATH Automation (753961)
Started on Tue May 20 16:02:21 1997, by Nathan

Subject: Possible PATH Automation
Message Number: 753961
Posted by: Nathan
Date: Tue May 20 16:02:21 1997

IF PATH is losing so much money (I do not know exactly how much) then shouldn't the Port Authority consider major improvements that would increase efficiency in the long run? If the Port Authority is ordering new cars (in the future) why don't they look into automation?? It would initially be expensive, but it would increase the efficiency and speed of the service.

Thread title: R-110s (753972)
Started on Tue May 20 22:04:23 1997, by A person

Subject: R-110s
Message Number: 753972
Posted by: A person
Date: Tue May 20 22:04:23 1997

What happened to the R-110 prototype? Was the project continued?? Were more cars made?
- Subject: Re: R-110s
- Message Number: 753985
- Posted by: John
- Date: Wed May 21 16:19:37 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]R-110s posted by A person on May 20, 1997 at 22:04:23: The R-110s were test trains. They were not in revenue service. I don't know if they are still being tested in passenger service, though.
  - Subject: Re: R-110s
  - Message Number: 753994
  - Posted by: A person
  - Date: Wed May 21 20:56:25 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: R-110s posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:19:37: So, will the technology tested in the Bombardier R-110's be used in future cars?
    - Subject: Re: R-110s
    - Message Number: 754000
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Wed May 21 21:32:43 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: R-110s posted by A person on May 21, 1997 at 20:56:25: Generally, yes. Of course, the trains won't be identical, but they will generally be the same.

Thread title: DON'T LOCK THE DOOR! (753987)
Started on Wed May 21 16:39:51 1997, by John

Subject: DON'T LOCK THE DOOR!
Message Number: 753987
Posted by: John
Date: Wed May 21 16:39:51 1997

Why are the end doors of the R-44, R-46, and R-68 cars locked? I feel safer knowing that I can cross into a different car if a situation arises in my car. Will the end doors on the R-142s be locked?
- Subject: Re: DON'T LOCK THE DOOR!
- Message Number: 753988
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Wed May 21 19:49:52 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]DON'T LOCK THE DOOR! posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:39:51: The end doors are locked on all of the 75' cars for safety. Many of the lines served by these cars have sharp curves. The anti-climbs on these cars tend to sweep in opposite directions while the 75 footers go around the curves. A person caught on the outside could be swept off and onto the tracks. The R-142s will likely be the size of a standard IRT car and the end doors would probably not be kept locked. The R-143s on the other hand are expected to be 67' long. The old BMT Standards were also 67' long and I don't remember the end doors being locked, however, it would also depend on the truck placement. The L line, where the R-143s will go, has its share of sharp curves.

Thread title: Re: Subway Quiz - Clarification !!! (753998)
Started on Wed May 21 21:23:25 1997, by Steve

Subject: Re: Subway Quiz - Clarification !!!
Message Number: 753998
Posted by: Steve
Date: Wed May 21 21:23:25 1997

In Reply to: [6]Subway Quiz posted by Steve on May 21, 1997 at 20:27:21: First of all, this is on the level and NO STRINGS ATTACHED. I'd suggest that you E-Mail me your answers following the hyper-text link. DONT POST YOUR ANSWERS I will let you know how you scored and make arrangements to send you your patch (iron on in Blue, Gold and White). In case of a tie, I have a few extra patches - but not too many. (and I hope I don't regret saying that) I will absolutely not send a patch to anyone who does not get all ten questions correct UNLESS ..... You work for another US System and have a patch to trade. Steve

Thread title: Grand Central Station (754006)
Started on Wed May 21 22:59:41 1997, by Michael Azzollini

Subject: Grand Central Station
Message Number: 754006
Posted by: Michael Azzollini
Date: Wed May 21 22:59:41 1997

I was passing through Grand Central Station today from the shuttle to the 6 line. Passing through the connecting pedestrian tunnel, the gate to the "Tower" was open and you could clearly see the curving old alignment from the original "Day One" trackage. On a TA tour about 2 months ago,- with Joe Cunningham as our guide, I recall him saying that there was a short spur just west of GCT. The spur was used to store Belmont's private car,-the Mineola. Although the track is long gone, apparently, evidence of this 5th track at GCT can be seen in the wider walls at GCT vs the tunnel leading to TS. I've noticed that the shuttles on both outside tacks make a slight curve inward after leaving GCT enroute to TS. Can anyone add to this? Can anyone provide an old track layout? Also, I understand that the short platform from the now extinct Belmont Hotel still exists. I believe it leads to an electrical closet now?

Thread title: R110A&B Test Trains (754967)
Started on Thu May 22 10:38:17 1997, by Charles

Subject: R110A&B Test Trains
Message Number: 754967
Posted by: Charles
Date: Thu May 22 10:38:17 1997

Does Anyone know if NYCT has plans to put either of these trains on any other lines then the A & C with the R110B and the # 2 on the R110A? I know the R110A Cannot run on the 4,5 or 6 due to the problem with allignment with the gap fillers at 14th St. The R110B has it's conductors boards set up on the A,C,E,Q I think that there are boards on the Rockaway Park Shuttle.
- Subject: R110A&B Test Trains
- Message Number: 754968
- Posted by: Charles
- Date: Thu May 22 10:44:00 1997
  
  Does Anyone know if NYCT has plans to put either of these trains on any other lines then the A & C with the R110B and the # 2 on the R110A? I know the R110A Cannot run on the 4,5 or 6 due to the problem with allignment with the gap fillers at 14th St. The R110B has it's conductors boards set up on the A,C,E,Q I think that there are boards on the Rockaway Park Shuttle.
  - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
  - Message Number: 754981
  - Posted by: Quigebo
  - Date: Thu May 22 16:21:03 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]R110A&B Test Trains posted by Charles on May 22, 1997 at 10:44:00: The R110A has operated as a #5 train. I know, because I rode it in late June 95. It pulled into East 180th Street displaying a green #5, where the red #2 is normally displayed. It went express in the Bronx, then down Lex, terminating at Bowling Green. Stops were announced by the conductor, which is done when the train has to be rerouted. In that case, it was done because the TA didn't have recorded announcements made for the #5 line. I also rode the R110A down the East side a second time (this time as a #2) when a #3 train had to be taken out of service at 135th.So I think the R110A could run as a #5, although I hope it doesn't. The #5 has those two R62As, while the #2 is currently all Redbirds (though R62s were tested on the #2 in 83 and 84. Why they didn't stay on the #2 is something I don't understand. The #2's R26s and R17s (as much as I liked the circular window up front) got more than their share of graffiti and malfunctions. The #2 would have benefited from new equipment. Finally, it's getting it with the R142s.
    - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
    - Message Number: 754984
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Thu May 22 18:44:22 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by Quigebo on May 22, 1997 at 16:21:03: The #5 uses R-62s? I thought it was an all-Redbird line. By the way, does the #6 still use them? I haven't seen Redbirds on the #6 lately, but I do know they are still used on the #4 occasionally. Are they also used on the #3 (I haven't seen one on the #3 for years, but I was just wondering). What about the #1 or 9 (haven't seen them on those lines either).
      - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
      - Message Number: 755001
      - Posted by: M.J.S.
      - Date: Fri May 23 21:29:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]R110A&B Test Trains posted by Charles on May 22, 1997 at 10:38:17: You're wrong, the R130 (aka R110A) once ran on the 5, between both 2 runs.
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
        Message Number: 755023
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sat May 24 19:40:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by M.J.S. on May 23, 1997 at 21:29:12: I must plead ignorance. I have never heard the R-110A referred to as the R-130 before. Where did you get that designation? I am not doubting you but I must confess that I did some research today and found no R-130 designation anywhere.
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
        Message Number: 755036
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Sun May 25 13:15:57 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by Steve on May 24, 1997 at 19:40:39: This might be wrong but I read at the JoeKorNer's (http://home.earthlink.net/~joekor)all time R-contract list (all 144 of them) that the R-110 was just the contract for the design and the R130 & R131 are the contracts for the actual cars to Kawasaki and Bombardier.
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
        Message Number: 755039
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun May 25 20:09:01 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by M.J.S. on May 25, 1997 at 13:15:57: I will check it out on Tuesday. I would not doubt it, however. The R-34s were referred to as R-11s long after the designation was changed officially and the R-1s & up were referred to as R-9s although most were not.
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
        Message Number: 755046
        Posted by: Keranu
        Date: Mon May 26 07:09:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by Quigebo on May 22, 1997 at 16:21:03: I know this is a strange request, Quigebo, but can you remember whether the R110As that you rode on displayed the number on the front in the normal way (white number inside green/red circle) or was it shown in a different way using LEDs. I have never seen an R110 but have read that the ones to be used on numbered (IRT) lines are to use LEDs for the front route number whilst the R110Bs to be used on BMT & IND lines are to have normal roll-sign numbers. Can anyone clear this up for me?
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains
        Message Number: 755065
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Mon May 26 20:36:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by Keranu on May 26, 1997 at 07:09:44: Yes, I remember. The R110A uses LEDs to display the #s

Thread title: 1940's era help. (754969)
Started on Thu May 22 13:15:03 1997, by Pickatr

Subject: 1940's era help.
Message Number: 754969
Posted by: Pickatr
Date: Thu May 22 13:15:03 1997

Hi, I am looking to borrow/rent/buy several 40's era subway items (turnstile, straps, posters, etc.) if anyone can help guide me it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance
- Subject: Re: 1940's era help.
- Message Number: 754991
- Posted by: Charles Fiori
- Date: Fri May 23 08:16:57 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]1940's era help. posted by Pickatr on May 22, 1997 at 13:15:03: I have some destination signs from subway cars if you care. Reply via SubTalk.
  - Subject: Re: 1940's era help.
  - Message Number: 755010
  - Posted by: Nathan
  - Date: Fri May 23 23:39:07 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: 1940's era help. posted by Charles Fiori on May 23, 1997 at 08:16:57: Subway destination signs? how much would you charge for them?
    - Subject: Re: 1940's era help.
    - Message Number: 755015
    - Posted by: Charles Fiori
    - Date: Sat May 24 07:55:17 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: 1940's era help. posted by Nathan on May 23, 1997 at 23:39:07: Mail me at 3 First Natl Plaza, 26th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602 and let me know what you are looking for. The Transit Museum in Brooklyn and Trolley Museum in Connecticut are good sources, too. I'm really trying to find destination signs from buses.

Thread title: Re: Subway Quiz (754971)
Started on Thu May 22 14:25:20 1997, by bob

Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
Message Number: 754971
Posted by: bob
Date: Thu May 22 14:25:20 1997

In Reply to: [6]Subway Quiz posted by Steve on May 21, 1997 at 20:27:21: There is a much more recent answer to question 7 than Worth Street....
- Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
- Message Number: 754974
- Posted by: Keranu
- Date: Thu May 22 15:24:02 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by bob on May 22, 1997 at 14:25:20: Dean Street on the Franklin Av shuttle?
  - Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
  - Message Number: 754975
  - Posted by: Keranu
  - Date: Thu May 22 15:24:21 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by bob on May 22, 1997 at 14:25:20: Dean Street on the Franklin Av shuttle?
    - Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
    - Message Number: 754980
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Thu May 22 16:16:40 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: Subway Quiz posted by Keranu on May 22, 1997 at 15:24:21: Dean Street is an elevated station (not a subway station).
      - Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
      - Message Number: 754992
      - Posted by: Keranu
      - Date: Fri May 23 09:15:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by John on May 22, 1997 at 16:16:40: Oops, I thought it meant any station on the subway network.
        
        Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 754996
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Fri May 23 13:27:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by bob on May 22, 1997 at 14:25:20: Hmmmm ... what would you consider the lower level of 9th Avenue / 39 St on the Culver (shuttle)? Elevated or subway? That station is underground and it closed in 1975, but it technically isn't part of a "subway" (true sense of word) line, I believe. Scored a 70 on the exam! No studying but had a few "dumb" answers :-) --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 755014
        Posted by: Dan Schwartz
        Date: Sat May 24 07:43:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Subway Quiz posted by Steve on May 21, 1997 at 20:27:21: Here are my quiz answers; most I'm sure of, a few are guesses: 1) The New York City Transit Authority came into being on June 15 of what year? 1953 2) The NYC Transit Authority began service to the Rockaways on June 28 of what year? 1956 3) What connection unified the BMT & IND. It opened on November 26, 1967. Also, what was the first connection between the BMT and the IND 12 years earlier? a) The Chrystie Street Connection (on the B and D lines, including Grand Street station) b) The connection now used by the R train, from the 60th St. BMT tunnel to Queens Plaza 4) What is the busiest subway station in terms of paid fares (33.4 million fares in 1993) ? Grand Central 5) Which station is the hightest above ground (88 feet above Street level)? Smith/9th St. also which station is the furthest beneath street level. (180 feet) ? 191st St. (1/9 line) 6) What is the location of the only spring switch in the NYC Subway system? (Hint: Until the 207th Street flyover was built, this site was the only direct connection between the IRT and IND divisions) Concourse Yard in the Bronx 7) What SUBWAY station was the last one to be closed (1962) ? (Hint: not the 3rd Ave El stations which closed in 1973) Worth Street (Lex. Ave. line) 8) What was the last subway line to serve all 4 contiguous boroughs of NY city ? (The line no longer does) The "C"--until the southern terminal was cut back to Euclid Ave. 9) What was the last line to operate with Wooden cars? The Myrtle Ave. el ("MJ") 10) The # 7 line ran to the 1963 NY Worlds fair. What line was built specifically for the 1939 Worlds Fair? A spur from the Queens Blvd. line. I think part of it is now the yard lead for the yard next to the Kew Gardens (highway) Interchange, I'm not sure about that..
        
        Subject: Re: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 755040
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun May 25 20:16:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by Mark S Feinman on May 23, 1997 at 13:27:26: One thing I've learned in taking exams, both in college and Civil Service, is that no matter how well though out they are, there will be questions with unanticipated answers. 9th Ave station, is not closed. There is only a dis-used platform. The subway system has many of them. For my source reference I used a TA publication called "New York City Transit's Facts & Figures" . It was given away at the APTA convention held in NYC in 1995. (Please don't write and tell me it was 94 because that's not the point). Had I had the foresight, I would have grabbed a bunch of them. I think they would have made a better prize.
        
        Subject: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 753990
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 20:26:09 1997
        
        Here are 10 questions any true New York Subway System fan should be able to answer. However, I will send (VIA first class mail) an official New York City Transit 90th Anniversary Patch to the first 5 rail-fans to get the correct answer to all ten questions. 1) The New York City Transit Authority came into being on June 15 of what year? 2) The NYC Transit Authority began service to the Rockaways on June 28 of what year? 3) What connection unified the BMT & IND. It opened on November 26, 1967. Also, what was the first connection between the BMT and the IND 12 years earlier? 4) What is the busiest subway station in terms of paid fares (33.4 million fares in 1993) ? 5) Which station is the hightest above ground (88 feet above Street level)? also which station is the furthest beneath street level. (180 feet) ? 6) What is the location of the only spring switch in the NYC Subway system? (Hint: Until the 207th Street flyover was built, this site was the only direct connection between the IRT and IND divisions) 7) What SUBWAY station was the last one to be closed (1962) ? (Hint: not the 3rd Ave El stations which closed in 1973) 8) What was the last subway line to serve all 4 contiguous boroughs of NY city ? (The line no longer does) 9) What was the last line to operate with Wooden cars? 10) The # 7 line ran to the 1963 NY Worlds fair. What line was built specifically for the 1939 Worlds Fair?
        
        Subject: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 753991
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 20:26:52 1997
        
        Here are 10 questions any true New York Subway System fan should be able to answer. However, I will send (VIA first class mail) an official New York City Transit 90th Anniversary Patch to the first 5 rail-fans to get the correct answer to all ten questions. 1) The New York City Transit Authority came into being on June 15 of what year? 2) The NYC Transit Authority began service to the Rockaways on June 28 of what year? 3) What connection unified the BMT & IND. It opened on November 26, 1967. Also, what was the first connection between the BMT and the IND 12 years earlier? 4) What is the busiest subway station in terms of paid fares (33.4 million fares in 1993) ? 5) Which station is the hightest above ground (88 feet above Street level)? also which station is the furthest beneath street level. (180 feet) ? 6) What is the location of the only spring switch in the NYC Subway system? (Hint: Until the 207th Street flyover was built, this site was the only direct connection between the IRT and IND divisions) 7) What SUBWAY station was the last one to be closed (1962) ? (Hint: not the 3rd Ave El stations which closed in 1973) 8) What was the last subway line to serve all 4 contiguous boroughs of NY city ? (The line no longer does) 9) What was the last line to operate with Wooden cars? 10) The # 7 line ran to the 1963 NY Worlds fair. What line was built specifically for the 1939 Worlds Fair?
        
        Subject: Subway Quiz
        Message Number: 753993
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 20:27:21 1997
        
        Here are 10 questions any true New York Subway System fan should be able to answer. However, I will send (VIA first class mail) an official New York City Transit 90th Anniversary Patch to the first 5 rail-fans to get the correct answer to all ten questions. 1) The New York City Transit Authority came into being on June 15 of what year? 2) The NYC Transit Authority began service to the Rockaways on June 28 of what year? 3) What connection unified the BMT & IND. It opened on November 26, 1967. Also, what was the first connection between the BMT and the IND 12 years earlier? 4) What is the busiest subway station in terms of paid fares (33.4 million fares in 1993) ? 5) Which station is the hightest above ground (88 feet above Street level)? also which station is the furthest beneath street level. (180 feet) ? 6) What is the location of the only spring switch in the NYC Subway system? (Hint: Until the 207th Street flyover was built, this site was the only direct connection between the IRT and IND divisions) 7) What SUBWAY station was the last one to be closed (1962) ? (Hint: not the 3rd Ave El stations which closed in 1973) 8) What was the last subway line to serve all 4 contiguous boroughs of NY city ? (The line no longer does) 9) What was the last line to operate with Wooden cars? 10) The # 7 line ran to the 1963 NY Worlds fair. What line was built specifically for the 1939 Worlds Fair?

Thread title: Re: subway NOISE (754972)
Started on Thu May 22 14:46:04 1997, by John

Subject: Re: subway NOISE
Message Number: 754972
Posted by: John
Date: Thu May 22 14:46:04 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: subway NOISE posted by M.J.S. on May 21, 1997 at 22:56:50: Yeah, well, maybe I am crazy, but the way I feel about the subway noise has to do with personal feelings.
- Subject: Re: subway NOISE
- Message Number: 754976
- Posted by: Keranu
- Date: Thu May 22 15:32:00 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:24:26: Couldn't agree with you more! Screeching, sparks, jolts, acceleration to knock you out your seat, incoming trains capable of swiping you into the tunnel with them. Panhandlers, trains that don't tell you where they're going. Bring back the grafitti(still can't find anyone to agree with me on this one). Unpainted subway cars, static shocks off the doors, uncomfy seats, standing at the rush hour, unheard announcements, overnight service diversions. You name it. It's all a seriously essential part of the New York Subway, why change something that works?
  - Subject: Re: subway NOISE
  - Message Number: 754977
  - Posted by: Keranu
  - Date: Thu May 22 15:34:17 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:24:26: Couldn't agree with you more! Screeching, sparks, jolts, acceleration to knock you out your seat, incoming trains capable of swiping you into the tunnel with them. Panhandlers, trains that don't tell you where they're going. Bring back the grafitti(still can't find anyone to agree with me on this one). Unpainted subway cars, static shocks off the doors, uncomfy seats, standing at the rush hour, unheard announcements, overnight service diversions. You name it. It's all a seriously essential part of the New York Subway, why change something that works?
    - Subject: Re: subway NOISE
    - Message Number: 754978
    - Posted by: Nathan McCartney
    - Date: Thu May 22 16:02:37 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by M.J.S. on May 21, 1997 at 22:54:47: It must say something about you, I don't know what, but if you want to have the NYC subway weld it's rails, incorporate Linear Induction Motors, pneumatic suspension, chandeliers, velvet seats, coffee bars (ok, they do do that on some commuter trains in other cities) paintings, menageries, mini orchestras, why don't YOU offer to help cough up money for the bill, I'm sure you would love to have your taxes raised so you could listen to mozart, look at artwork, get a coffee and listen to the gentle whine of the Linear induction motors.
      - Subject: Re: subway NOISE
      - Message Number: 755000
      - Posted by: M.J.S.
      - Date: Fri May 23 21:19:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Nathan McCartney on May 22, 1997 at 16:02:37: I didn't say I wanted these luxuries, I just said that these aren't bad Ideas, the mechanical differences (outside the parentheses) is what I really wanted.
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 755011
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Fri May 23 23:44:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: subway NOISE posted by M.J.S. on May 23, 1997 at 21:19:59: Ahaaa, I see, so, if you are going to make all these massive, expensive (only 3 transit systems use these advanced technologies on grand scale, well, one is still under construction) but the mechanical improvements would cost so much it would not make that much of a difference if you did add chandeliers and velvet sofas...
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 755016
        Posted by: Dan Schwartz
        Date: Sat May 24 08:19:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Nathan on May 20, 1997 at 22:01:21: There is one spot on the system where I find the screeching really is intolerable, that is on the ramps used by the #5 trains between 149th St.-Grand Concourse station and the common 4/5-line tracks north of 138th St-Grand Concourse station. Investing some money to rebuild this short stretch in a way that would eliminate screeching would be worth it. I have sometimes wondered, though, if the problem couldn't be addressed by putting some kind of dry lubricant (e.g. graphite) on the sides (vertical surfaces) of the rails. I have thought about what is it that actually makes the squeaking; I think it is friction between the wheel flanges and the side of the rail, and that lubrication here would therfore help. Of course, they would have to be sure that it could not spread to the top surface of the rail and impair traction of the train, but I don't think it would. Has this been tried? Does it make any sense, or am I way off base in my idea about the source of screeching noise on curves?
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 755042
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun May 25 23:21:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Dan Schwartz on May 24, 1997 at 08:19:52: Flange oilers are common throughout the system. I am not familiar with the area that you are talking about, however, so I can't say whether they are there and not working or have never been installed.
        
        Subject: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753964
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Tue May 20 21:11:30 1997
        
        has anything been done in the designs of the r142's and 3's in order to make the subways QUIETER? less screeching etc??
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753971
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Tue May 20 22:01:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]subway NOISE posted by Lefty on May 20, 1997 at 21:11:30: What, you don't like the screeching?? What exactly do you want, have every rail hand welded, incorporate steerable axles (forced steering), linear induction motors, pneumatic suspension.... (chandeliers, chamber music, velvet seats.....)
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753986
        Posted by: John
        Date: Wed May 21 16:24:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: subway NOISE posted by Nathan on May 20, 1997 at 22:01:21: I know, right? New York's subway isn't ment to pamper and baby it's passengers. What I want is sheer noise! Loud screeching, screaming brakes, bumpy and jolting rides, flickering lights (at third rail gaps), fast speeds around curves, concrete platforms, flourescent lighting, leaky ceilings, hard bench seating . . . yeah! That's the New York Subway I know and grew up with!
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753989
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 19:54:19 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:24:26: * Car bodies made of lighter materials. * Lighter trucks due to AC Propulsion. * Ring Damped wheels. * Air Bag Suspension. * Better insulation. * Unitized HVAC mounted in the roof of the car. Id say that the cars will be quieter inside and out.
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753995
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Wed May 21 21:04:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Steve on May 21, 1997 at 19:54:19: Are you describing a present model car? Why not go all the way? With AC power why don't you do what is done on the bombardier ART's (Advanced Rapid Transit) and (instead of carrying an AC converter) have both 3rd AND 4th rails, one at +300V and one at -300V (AC), weld every rail and power collection rails, and why not go Linear Induction Motor?? Trains could stop faster with less wear on the brakes, (braking is done by reversing the current to the L.I.M.) and trains will move faster! (I'm being sarcastic, making the subway quieter would require massive amounts of $$$!!! All I can say is when it comes to the noise, LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!!
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 753999
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 21:30:42 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Nathan on May 21, 1997 at 21:04:28: Unfortunately, the idea is not to reinvent the wheel. It is to come up with a car that is somewhat 'State of the Art' while being compatible with the existing system. Many of the things I mentioned have been tried or are currently in use on the NYCT. Most cars have 'Ring Damped Wheels' to reduce squeal on curves. The R-46s had air bag trucks when first delivered. Some of the other features mentioned have been prototype tested. All in all, the R-142s and R-143s will be as high tech as possible and still be able to run with the R-32s and 36s.
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 754002
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Wed May 21 22:54:47 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Nathan on May 20, 1997 at 22:01:21: YES YES YES (and why not?)
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 754004
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Wed May 21 22:56:50 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by John on May 21, 1997 at 16:24:26: Hopefully you never have your way, If you will, I will be forced to leave my beloved NY and move to a city like DC.
        
        Subject: Re: subway NOISE
        Message Number: 754005
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Wed May 21 22:58:14 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: subway NOISE posted by Steve on May 21, 1997 at 19:54:19: That is exactly what the R-142/3 will have (and the R-130/1 have).

Thread title: Photos (754979)
Started on Thu May 22 16:06:13 1997, by Nathan

Subject: Photos
Message Number: 754979
Posted by: Nathan
Date: Thu May 22 16:06:13 1997

I'm wondering if anyone has any snap shots of the NYC subway they could sell me. Thanx!

Thread title: 2004 - 100 Years (754982)
Started on Thu May 22 16:59:50 1997, by John

Subject: 2004 - 100 Years
Message Number: 754982
Posted by: John
Date: Thu May 22 16:59:50 1997

Is the Transit Authority planning to do anything special during the 100th anniversary of the subway?

Thread title: Chicago Rail FanQuiz.com (754983)
Started on Thu May 22 17:40:27 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: Chicago Rail FanQuiz.com
Message Number: 754983
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Thu May 22 17:40:27 1997

Any-One Who is from Chicago should be able to answer the following questions: 1. The CTA Blue Line Forest Park (Congress) Branch used to be known as the ________ ______ Line. 2. The train Lines that used to Link to the CTA Lines and whent to the suburbs were called the ___________. -- This article was automatically copied from the SubTalk web page at http://www.nycsubway.org/subtalk/. (1143.html)

Thread title: Re: Chicago Rail FanQuiz.com - Q 8 &10 (754985)
Started on Thu May 22 18:50:36 1997, by John

Subject: Re: Chicago Rail FanQuiz.com - Q 8 &10
Message Number: 754985
Posted by: John
Date: Thu May 22 18:50:36 1997

In Reply to: [5]Chicago Rail FanQuiz.com posted by Brian Jakosz on May 22, 1997 at 17:40:27: I've always lived in New York and I will always live in New York, but I happen to know the answers to questions 8 and 10 from a recent trip to Chicago. 8 - The Skokie Line 10 - METRA

Thread title: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? (754986)
Started on Thu May 22 18:59:08 1997, by EDGAR GOMEZ

Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
Message Number: 754986
Posted by: EDGAR GOMEZ
Date: Thu May 22 18:59:08 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by YOUR MOM on May 21, 1997 at 10:57:24: THIS IS BIG BAD MENT one HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
- Subject: LIRR Double-deckers ?
- Message Number: 753959
- Posted by: Ted Nielsen
- Date: Tue May 20 11:49:38 1997
  
  I heard something about the LIRR introducing double-deckers next year , is that true ? If it is , who will built them and on what lines will they be used ?
  - Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
  - Message Number: 753966
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Tue May 20 21:21:37 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by Ted Nielsen on May 20, 1997 at 11:49:38: If I'm not mistaking, the double-deckers are already in service and they have been for a while, although the LIRR doesn't have too many of them and I haven't personally seen one.
    - Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
    - Message Number: 753974
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Tue May 20 23:16:22 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by John on May 20, 1997 at 21:21:37: One prototype train is in service on the Port Jeff Branch. The LIRR has ordered 114 double deckers. I believe that Kawasaki Heavi Industries will assemble them in Yonkers, NY. By the way, if the main line track rehab. has not altered its' schedule, you can see the double deckers daily. They leave Penn Station @4:49 PM and Jamaica @ 5:11 PM.
      - Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
      - Message Number: 753976
      - Posted by: David Steckler
      - Date: Wed May 21 07:28:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by Steve on May 20, 1997 at 23:16:22: > The double-decker's leave Penn Station? That doesn't sound right because the cars won't fit in the tunnels. Don't you catch an elctric-powered (M-unit) train at Penn and change to the double-deckers at Jamaica?
        
        Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
        Message Number: 753977
        Posted by: YOUR MOM
        Date: Wed May 21 10:57:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by David Steckler on May 21, 1997 at 07:28:05: GET A LIFE PEOPLE THE SUBWAY SUCKS DICK
        
        Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
        Message Number: 753979
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 15:03:04 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by David Steckler on May 21, 1997 at 07:28:05: As a matter of fact, they do fit through the tunnel. There is an FL-9AC at either end for propulsion and electric power for lights and HVAC. I see them almost daily.
        
        Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
        Message Number: 753982
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Wed May 21 15:08:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by YOUR MOM on May 21, 1997 at 10:57:24: As a matter of fact, most of us do have lives. They include something that we all have in commonthat we find interesting and enjoyable. On the other hand, if your only enjoyment comes from the derission of other peoples interests, what does that say about the quality of your life? Most of us indentify ourselves. If not by our whole name, then by our first. You, on the other hand, find it necessary to hide behind "Your Mother". I suspect that you've been doing that too, all your poor empty life. Grow Up
        
        Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
        Message Number: 753984
        Posted by: Lefty
        Date: Wed May 21 15:27:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by Jim on May 21, 1997 at 15:08:48: good call Jim
        
        Subject: Re: LIRR Double-deckers ?
        Message Number: 753996
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Wed May 21 21:09:11 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: LIRR Double-deckers ? posted by YOUR MOM on May 21, 1997 at 10:57:24: Hmmmm, if the subway "sucks dick" as you say, then what were you doing at this page?? You must be a railfan that is just in Denial... *smirk*

Thread title: Relocated Canarsie Line (754988)
Started on Thu May 22 19:53:38 1997, by John Hay

Subject: Relocated Canarsie Line
Message Number: 754988
Posted by: John Hay
Date: Thu May 22 19:53:38 1997

Anyone have any background on the Relocated Canarsie Line? It's visible on the TA B&W map (not too clearly, and truncated) on the NYC Subway Resources 2 Av pages.

Thread title: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" (754989)
Started on Thu May 22 22:32:39 1997, by Sam Gamberg

Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
Message Number: 754989
Posted by: Sam Gamberg
Date: Thu May 22 22:32:39 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by Nathan on May 19, 1997 at 23:19:02: Thank you for some advise about buying a subway car "Low V" IRT. What I was thinking about was to transport by flatbed truck, here up to Vermont (basement not neccesary) and build a underground site and recreate a subway platform/station or above ground in a large Barn (Garage) and again recreate a station !! Also you all know the "subway" fast food chain around the country or locally. Why not have a "subway" car as resturaunt !! These are some ideas and may not be for everyone. Again I love subways and originally grew up in New York (Brooklyn) and have always been fasinated with trains. Thank you !
- Subject: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
- Message Number: 753928
- Posted by: sam gamberg
- Date: Sat May 17 23:41:51 1997
  
  Is it possible to buy (purchase) a vintage subway car ? One that is not working. I am really curious about this. Thank you. Sam Gamberg Colchester, Vermont
  - Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
  - Message Number: 753932
  - Posted by: Zack
  - Date: Sun May 18 00:52:43 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by sam gamberg on May 17, 1997 at 23:41:51: i suppose you could for scrap value. it probally would be rusted out/minus operation gear.etc but you probally could. but how would get it home?
    - Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
    - Message Number: 753933
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Sun May 18 01:17:36 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by sam gamberg on May 17, 1997 at 23:41:51: Yes you can and actually, it is not as difficult or uncommon as you might think. I'm not quite sure who you would contact but I'd suggest that you phone : (718) 330-1234 and ask for the scrap division. Be advised that the car be moved to a point such as the 38th Street Yard in Brooklyn. From that point, the transportation etc. will be your responsibility.
      - Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
      - Message Number: 753949
      - Posted by: Nathan
      - Date: Mon May 19 23:19:02 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by Steve on May 18, 1997 at 01:17:36: How the hell would you transport an old car anyway?? I suppose you could have the bogeys removed, but would it not be expensive??? (Yes, I want an old subway car in my basement)
        
        Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
        Message Number: 753950
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 19 23:40:25 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by Nathan on May 19, 1997 at 23:19:02: Actually, the trucks are removed and the car body is put on the back of a truck (flatbed). Now of course if you want one in your basement, you'd probably have to lay tracks over the stairs and ride it down. slowly.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
        Message Number: 753958
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Tue May 20 11:21:41 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by sam gamberg on May 17, 1997 at 23:41:51: Getting the TA to sell you a carbody is probably not that difficult and the price would likely be based on the current value of scrap steel, however the sale would be FOB wherever the car presently is and removal would be required within a fixed time limit. Moving large cars is expensive and to make the body into a legal highway trailer you would have to weld a fifth wheel plate at one end (requires removing the coupler) and weld or bolt a tandem axle dolly at the other end. Then you need air brake equipment and lights. We move cars this way at Seashore Trolley Museum. Usually the tractor brings a flatbed to the site, brings up the body first and then returns for the flatbed with the trucks. The MBTA in Boston usually lets us use their shop cranes to load the cars. The alternative is rent your own or build a blocking pile. This is not a task for the inexoerienced! Incidently, the motors are the most valuable component of the car (much copper) if you buy the whole thing, you can defer some of the moving cost by selling the motors. Incidentally R-11s are IND-BMT cars (60') and there is only one left which the TA Museum isn't likely to part with. Low "V" cars are also quite rare. Most likely available IRT cars are probably from the R-17 through R-26 series used as work cars after retirement. R-12 and R-14 have a classic look but are probably now scarce. R-15 cars were a transitional unit with some features from both previous and succeeding classes and are probably rare.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
        Message Number: 753968
        Posted by: John
        Date: Tue May 20 21:31:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by Nathan on May 19, 1997 at 23:19:02: You want a subway car in your basement? Just how do you plan on getting it in? Knocking a hole in your wall and putting tracks leading in? Removing the roof and ceilings of your house and having it hoisted in by a crane? Demolishing your house, putting the subway car in place, and then rebuild your house around it? Take my advice - forget it. Settle for the backyard instead.
        
        Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
        Message Number: 753970
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Tue May 20 21:57:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by John on May 20, 1997 at 21:31:52: Aghhhhh!!!! It was lust I tell you, LUST!! I live on the West Coast, how will I get the car out here?? We were talking about how to go about buying an old subway car, not how we are going to move it into our basements! (That, my friend, is a personal fantasy!)
        
        Subject: Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V"
        Message Number: 753997
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 21 21:15:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: IRT R-11 LOW "V" posted by Nathan on May 20, 1997 at 21:57:56: In 1992, BART shipped one of their cars to Hornell, NY to be 'reverse engineered' by Morrison Knudsen. They sent it via flat car. From 1982 through 1992, cars ranging from the R-26 through the R-46 (more than 2,000) have been shipped via rail or truck when sent for overhaul. I suppose you could check on the freight rates.

Thread title: The MBTA (754993)
Started on Fri May 23 09:57:00 1997, by Del Rico

Subject: The MBTA
Message Number: 754993
Posted by: Del Rico
Date: Fri May 23 09:57:00 1997

I was wondering if any of you would have any old photos of any of the transit vehicles of Boston's MBTA. When I say old I only mean the late 1960's.
- Subject: Re: The MBTA
- Message Number: 754994
- Posted by: steve lowenthal
- Date: Fri May 23 11:37:02 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]The MBTA posted by Del Rico on May 23, 1997 at 09:57:00: check the ne transporation site

Thread title: Redbird Use (was: Re: R110A&B Test Trains) (754995)
Started on Fri May 23 13:23:13 1997, by Mark S Feinman

Subject: Redbird Use (was: Re: R110A&B Test Trains)
Message Number: 754995
Posted by: Mark S Feinman
Date: Fri May 23 13:23:13 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by John on May 22, 1997 at 18:44:22: From personal observation, by IRT line (I use the term "R-62" generically as some are R-62s and others are R-62As): #1/9 - exclusively R-62s #2 - exclusively redbirds #3 - exclusively R-62s #4 - mostly R-62s, some redbirds #5 - mostly redbirds, some R-62s during rush hours #6 - mostly R-62s, a rare redbird now and then #7 - exclusively R-33/36 world's fair redbirds --Mark

Thread title: Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc... (754997)
Started on Fri May 23 14:43:23 1997, by Ed

Subject: Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc...
Message Number: 754997
Posted by: Ed
Date: Fri May 23 14:43:23 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc... posted by Steve on May 20, 1997 at 23:12:38: More interesting were the ex-SIRT cars which were used on the BMT in the late 50's. These were the same size as the BMT standards, but had vestibule ends like the old IRT lo-v's and hi-v's, but a double-door with conductor's door controls (as on the standards) in the middle. These cars also had walkover (reversible) seats. As the story goes, SIRT had surpluss cars in the 1950's when it abandoned service on the North Shore and South Beach lines, and the TA, short on equipment, bought the surpluss. The cars were used on the Culver and West End lines prior to the arrival of the R27's in 1960.
- Subject: SIRR compared to the IRT etc...
- Message Number: 753963
- Posted by: Lefty
- Date: Tue May 20 19:17:00 1997
  
  if there was a connection between SIRR and the rest of the subway, is the equipment between them compatible and what not? like the same track gauge and same type of cars?
  - Subject: Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc...
  - Message Number: 753965
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Tue May 20 21:19:36 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]SIRR compared to the IRT etc... posted by Lefty on May 20, 1997 at 19:17:00: The equipment is the same. The SIRR uses R-44 cars, just like the Subway, and as far as I know, they is no difference, excpet that the SIRR trains have different signage (SIRR decals rather than Subway decals). Just one thing, though - is it me, or are the SIRR cars slightly less rounded than the Subway cars? I seem to notice this every time I see the trains at the Ferry Terminal in Staten Island. The interior is the same, though.
    - Subject: Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc...
    - Message Number: 753973
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Tue May 20 23:12:38 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: SIRR compared to the IRT etc... posted by John on May 20, 1997 at 21:19:36: I'm afraid it's your imagination. 12 of the SI R-44s began their careers as NYCT R-44s.

Thread title: M train "express track" (755002)
Started on Fri May 23 21:33:57 1997, by Bob Andersen

Subject: M train "express track"
Message Number: 755002
Posted by: Bob Andersen
Date: Fri May 23 21:33:57 1997

The Myrtle Ave. line is three tracks wide from the Wyckoff Ave. station to Broadway-Myrtle, although there have not been any rails or ties on the center "express" track for at least 40 (from my own observations) years. This track would have enabled express trains to bypass the Knickerbocker and Central Ave. stations. Does anyone know if such expresses ever actually ran? The book "The Brooklyn Elevateds" has one picture, on page 36, probably taken soon after the line was upgraded about 1915 , which shows the center track in service. If you're ever on the Wyckoff Ave. station, note where the platform has been built over this third track.

Thread title: Re: Queensboro Bridge - Retractable Roadway (755013)
Started on Sat May 24 00:48:44 1997, by Jim

Subject: Re: Queensboro Bridge - Retractable Roadway
Message Number: 755013
Posted by: Jim
Date: Sat May 24 00:48:44 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Queensboro Bridge posted by Zack on May 23, 1997 at 23:22:35: Listen guys. No one has to scale the side of the bridge to see the tracks under the retractable section of the roadway. From Roosevelt Island, there is a stairway up to the bridge. This was built to give employees of Byrd S. Cohler Hospital an easy way on and off the island. Anyway, if you climb this stairway, just before you reach the roadway level you'll be clearly able to see the tracks beneath it. Also, on the bridge tower supporting the stairway, just below the track level, there is a door. This door gives you access to the motor vault which houses motors #3 & 4. It also has the controls for the retractable deck. One word of warning though: The lower end of the stairway, on the island, has a fence around it. The stairs also look like they are in very poor shape. This is to discourage curiosity seekers. One other warning: When the TA had its' own police force, the foot of the stairway was a regular post. Now that the TA police have merged with the NYPD, this is no longer the case but the area is patroled frequently by the police and the Roosevelt Island Private Security force.

Thread title: 1998 Calendars (755017)
Started on Sat May 24 13:01:56 1997, by FRED WELLMAN

Subject: 1998 Calendars
Message Number: 755017
Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
Date: Sat May 24 13:01:56 1997

I noticed in one post the mention of a 1996 subway calendar. I have trolley and railroad but no subway. If anyone knows when and where I can get a subway calendar please let me know. I realize it is proably early for 1998. Thanx.
- Subject: Re: 1998 Calendars
- Message Number: 755021
- Posted by: David Pirmann
- Date: Sat May 24 16:48:17 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]1998 Calendars posted by FRED WELLMAN on May 24, 1997 at 13:01:56: You can get the calendars for 93-97 from a place called Netstuff-- [7]Netstuff Subway Page. They're well worth it, there are some pretty good photos in them. --Dave
  - Subject: Re: 1998 Calendars
  - Message Number: 755026
  - Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
  - Date: Sat May 24 21:37:23 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: 1998 Calendars posted by David Pirmann on May 24, 1997 at 16:48:17: Thanx for the info.

Thread title: Winners of the rail fan quiz.com (755018)
Started on Sat May 24 13:56:42 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: Winners of the rail fan quiz.com
Message Number: 755018
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Sat May 24 13:56:42 1997

All winners of the Chicago Rail fan quiz.com will be posted on June 1st on the board under chicago rail fan quiz winners.com Remember that there are prizes to be given, so try it and all entries must be E-mailed, this is the only way that they will be counted. THANKX

Thread title: New Design (755019)
Started on Sat May 24 14:04:38 1997, by John

Subject: New Design
Message Number: 755019
Posted by: John
Date: Sat May 24 14:04:38 1997

Are there any new designs planned for the current New York subway trains (such as new interior/exterior colors, new refurbishment projects, etc)?

Thread title: Problem with sending article (755022)
Started on Sat May 24 18:21:52 1997, by ~airplane

Subject: Problem with sending article
Message Number: 755022
Posted by: ~airplane
Date: Sat May 24 18:21:52 1997

My apologies to those who e-mailed me to request the NYT article on the 6 line and never goot it. My computer contracted a virus on Thursday that forced me to wipe out everything, including the article. If anyone still has it, and could send it to me, it would be a big help.
- Subject: Re: Problem with sending article
- Message Number: 755100
- Posted by: ~airplane
- Date: Tue May 27 20:22:29 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Problem with sending article posted by ~airplane on May 24, 1997 at 18:21:52: I've got it back now. Thanks Dave!

Thread title: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ (755024)
Started on Sat May 24 19:56:42 1997, by Steve

Subject: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ
Message Number: 755024
Posted by: Steve
Date: Sat May 24 19:56:42 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by Dan Schwartz on May 24, 1997 at 07:43:12: First, thanks for everyone who played along. Those of you who have E-Mailed me, your patches are in the mail or will be as soon as I get your mailing address. To anyone else, perhaps we will do this again soon - if our host, Dave, doesn't object to using up so much of his space. Dan has saved me the trouble of posting the correct answers to most of the questions. The one he got wrong was question #4. Actually Grand Central was second with 29.9 million fares in 1993. The most common mistake was in the response to question #6. Many people stated that they thought the correct answer was Queensboro Plaza. This was wrong for two reasons. First, Queensboro Plaza connects the IRT with the BMT, not the IND and second, there is no Spring Switch there. The ONLY spring switch in the entire NYCT system is #99 Switch in Concourse Yard on the car wash track. The second most common mistake was that the deepest station was 181 St. on either the A or the 1/9 line. My source for this was "The NY City Transit's Facts & Figures" Finally, for question #3, Dan had the correct answers but many of you correctly pointed out the connection from the IND to the BMT between Church and Ditmas Ave.s on the F line. Thanks again to all who played along !!!!! Steve

Thread title: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected (755025)
Started on Sat May 24 19:57:57 1997, by Steve

Subject: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected
Message Number: 755025
Posted by: Steve
Date: Sat May 24 19:57:57 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Subway Quiz posted by Dan Schwartz on May 24, 1997 at 07:43:12: First, thanks for everyone who played along. Those of you who have E-Mailed me, your patches are in the mail or will be as soon as I get your mailing address. To anyone else, perhaps we will do this again soon - if our host, Dave, doesn't object to using up so much of his space. Dan has saved me the trouble of posting the correct answers to most of the questions. The one he got wrong was question #4. Actually Grand Central was second with 29.9 million fares in 1993. The correct answer was Times Square. The most common mistake was in the response to question #6. Many people stated that they thought the correct answer was Queensboro Plaza. This was wrong for two reasons. First, Queensboro Plaza connects the IRT with the BMT, not the IND and second, there is no Spring Switch there. The ONLY spring switch in the entire NYCT system is #99 Switch in Concourse Yard on the car wash track. The second most common mistake was that the deepest station was 181 St. on either the A or the 1/9 line. My source for this was "The NY City Transit's Facts & Figures" Finally, for question #3, Dan had the correct answers but many of you correctly pointed out the connection from the IND to the BMT between Church and Ditmas Ave.s on the F line. Thanks again to all who played along !!!!! Steve
- Subject: Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected
- Message Number: 755064
- Posted by: Peter Rosa
- Date: Mon May 26 19:30:46 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected posted by Steve on May 24, 1997 at 19:57:57: Regarding the busiest station on the system - is Times Square busier than Grand Central on its own, or only when the station at 42nd/8th is included in the total?
  - Subject: Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected
  - Message Number: 755072
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Tue May 27 00:49:23 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected posted by Peter Rosa on May 26, 1997 at 19:30:46: As Richard Nixon used to say, "I'm glad you asked that question." According to my source, the Times Square Station includes the following lines: A,C,E,N,R,S,1,2,3,7 & 9. The number of annual fares cited 33.4 million vs 29.9 for Grand Central were for 1993 although I doubt that things have changed much. In case you are interested, the rest of the top 10 are: 3) 34th Herald Square 21.1 million 4) Penn Station 34th St (IRT) 18.9 million 5) Penn Station (IND 8th Ave) 16.3 million 6) 51 St. Lex (IND/IRT) 15.4 million 7) Chambers St. (IND/IRT) 14.6 million 8) 14th St Union Sq. (BMT/IRT) 14.2 million 9) Fulton St. (BMT/IND/IRT) 13.6 million 10) 47th St.-6th Av 12.8 million
    - Subject: Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected
    - Message Number: 755090
    - Posted by: Peter Rosa
    - Date: Tue May 27 16:25:50 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 00:49:23: Thanks for the clarification. Is there any information on what Times Square would be without 42nd/8th? There's at least some case for arguing that they are separate stations despite the passageway. I suppose that if they are considered as separate stations, Grand Central would be back into first place.
      - Subject: Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected
      - Message Number: 755099
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Tue May 27 20:08:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: THE ANSWERS TO THE QUIZ - Corrected posted by Peter Rosa on May 27, 1997 at 16:25:50: There was no such date. While passing through Penn Station this morning, I thought that had the 6th, 7th & 8th Ave lines had a free transfer @ 34th Street. That area would be the busiest by far. Most surprising was that Columbus Circle (A,B,C,D, 1 & 9) didn't make the top 10.

Thread title: Toronto subway /abandoned stations (755029)
Started on Sun May 25 00:45:54 1997, by Brian

Subject: Toronto subway /abandoned stations
Message Number: 755029
Posted by: Brian
Date: Sun May 25 00:45:54 1997

I have heard from various sources that there is a disused lower-level platform at Bay station on the Toronto subway system. Is this true? What does it look like? When did the TTC stop using it? Are there any pictures available of it? Also, I was wondering if there are any other abandoned subway stations in Toronto. Any information on any of the above topics would be greatly appreciated.
- Subject: Re: Toronto subway /abandoned stations
- Message Number: 755030
- Posted by: Nathan McCartney
- Date: Sun May 25 01:39:13 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Toronto subway /abandoned stations posted by Brian on May 25, 1997 at 00:45:54: Yeah, I found this information at the following site: http://web.idirect.com/~ttc/subway.html passengers on Bloor trains would be taken downtown from this location onto the University line without having to transfer. This service is no longer available and passengers must transfer at St. George Station.
  - Subject: Re: Toronto subway /abandoned stations
  - Message Number: 755062
  - Posted by: Michael Seaton
  - Date: Mon May 26 19:02:36 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Toronto subway /abandoned stations posted by Brian on May 25, 1997 at 00:45:54: Brian wrote: [ snip ] > Are there any pictures available of it? A few JPGs, as well as a capsule history of the station, can be found at: http://www.interlog.com/~cygnals/zine/issue8/subway.htm -- Michael Seaton (mseaton@infroramp.net)

Thread title: Re: Toronto subway /abandoned stations (Correction) (755031)
Started on Sun May 25 01:41:36 1997, by Nathan McCartney

Subject: Re: Toronto subway /abandoned stations (Correction)
Message Number: 755031
Posted by: Nathan McCartney
Date: Sun May 25 01:41:36 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: Toronto subway /abandoned stations posted by Nathan McCartney on May 25, 1997 at 01:39:13: for some reason, the entire paragraph wasn't recorded. here it is! The first phase of the Bloor-Danforth subway inter-connected with Yonge and St. George stations. At Bay Station two platforms were constructed, one underneath the other. Lower Bay, now used for film production and storage, was utilized for a time for integrated service, meaning that passengers on Bloor trains would be taken downtown from this location onto the University line without having to transfer. This service is no longer available and passengers must transfer at St. George Station.

Thread title: Manhattan Bridge (755032)
Started on Sun May 25 08:53:01 1997, by Keranu

Subject: Manhattan Bridge
Message Number: 755032
Posted by: Keranu
Date: Sun May 25 08:53:01 1997

Does anyone know what the CURRENT state of the Manhattan Bridge is regarding subways? I am especially wanting to know whether any repairs are being carried out AT PRESENT and the likelihood of N trains using the bridge and the reinstatement of express trains on the Broadway line. Does anyone also know how the DoT or MTA or whoever responsible for repairing the brdige managed to carry out months of expensive repairs and still not be able to return the southern tracks to service? Has the link between the BMT Broadway tracks at Canal to the bridge been closed? I hope not. Any other Manhattan Bridge information out there??
- Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
- Message Number: 755033
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Sun May 25 10:27:27 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu on May 25, 1997 at 08:53:01: The NYState DOT is responsible for the bridge repairs which are on-going. On a recent trip over the bridge, I saw the decking panels stacked up near the Brooklyn end of the bridge. Once completed, there is every expectation that the N train or another B'way line train will again use the bridge. The Canal Street connection has been removed. The tracks are no longer there although the tunnel is in tact. While restoration might be possible, it would involve the construction of an interlocking plant and the expense would far outweigh the benifit.
  - Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
  - Message Number: 755037
  - Posted by: David Pirmann
  - Date: Sun May 25 15:53:22 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Steve on May 25, 1997 at 10:27:27: Actually, the CANAL street connection is still there. The Nassau connection is the one that was severed (back in '67 when Chrystie St. opened). --Dave
    - Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
    - Message Number: 755041
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Sun May 25 20:20:41 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on May 25, 1997 at 15:53:22: It's been 30 years since the Chryitie St. connection was made. At the time, I was using the line to go to and from Brooklyn Tech. I can not remember the exact track arrangement of that time but if anyone has an accurate pictorial representation, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
      - Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
      - Message Number: 755053
      - Posted by: David Pirmann
      - Date: Mon May 26 12:35:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Steve on May 25, 1997 at 20:20:41: See [7]Subway Track Maps. There are diagrams of both pre- and post-Chrystie St. -Dave
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 755055
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 26 13:30:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on May 26, 1997 at 12:35:17: I checked the pre & post Chrystie St. commections. My recollections were correct. Originally, the north side of the bridge was connected to Canal Street. When the Chrystie St. cut was completed, this connection was severed. What I was referring to was what it would take to re-establish this connection until the south side of the bridge is completed. This is what I thought the original writer was asking.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 755078
        Posted by: Keranu
        Date: Tue May 27 10:47:02 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 13:30:06: Thanks for your help, does anyone know what sort of timescale we are talking until the Broadway Express is reintroduced and until the N uses Manhattan Bridge again? Is the M likely to run back into Bklyn at middays as well when the N is transferred?
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 755079
        Posted by: Keranu
        Date: Tue May 27 10:47:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 13:30:06: Thanks for your help, does anyone know what sort of timescale we are talking until the Broadway Express is reintroduced and until the N uses Manhattan Bridge again? Is the M likely to run back into Bklyn at middays as well when the N is transferred?
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 755123
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed May 28 22:54:37 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu on May 25, 1997 at 08:53:01: The connection may not have been removed, but the tracks are in horrible shape. The downtown platform is completely inaccessible (unless you cross the tracks) and the station signs have been removed and bricked over. Otherwise nothing really permanent seems to have been done (nothing that new rails, a jackhammer, and some poured concrete can't fix 8-)).
        
        Subject: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757858
        Posted by: Charles Fiori
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:36:43 1997
        
        Today's (9/10) NY Daily News has an article on the schemes being considered to allow for the deterioration of the Manhattan Bridge and the effects on subway service. Their web site is www.mostnewyork.com. Look for the article in the same section as news of the NYC Dem mayoral primary. Click on "An Alley Oop for Messinger" and then scroll down. message back if any questions. One option considered is the connection from De Kalb to the Rutgers tunnel. The downside there is the bypassing of Grand St.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757864
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:36:47 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Manhattan Bridge posted by Charles Fiori on September 10, 1997 at 08:37:18: It was a bit confusing for me to see the Daily News article on the web, so [7] here it is in its entirety. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757878
        Posted by: Ed Sachs
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:36:58 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Manhattan Bridge posted by Charles Fiori on September 10, 1997 at 08:37:18: It seems to me that the Rutgers St. tunnel could never be a complete replacement to the Manhattan Bridge. The lines through DeKalb Ave. are already limited by two tracks being out-of-service on the bridge. To replace the two remaining tracks with a connection to a two track tunnel which also has to carry the F train would only further limit the number of trains which could be run. If trains need to be moved off the Manhattan Bridge, a replacement tunnel (2 tracks) as well as the connection to Rutgers St. tunnel would be needed. The replacement tunnel could serve the Broadway express tracks via the (currently idle) Canal St. station. This solution would still leave Grand St. station hanging (time to finally build the Second Ave. subway?). Of course, taking trains off the Manhattan Bridge will mean the end of one of the wordl's most scenic transit rides.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757879
        Posted by: David Pirmann
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:36:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Ed Sachs on September 11, 1997 at 09:24:48: So why not build the new tunnel to connect to both the Canal St. station (Broadway Express) and the Grand Street Station (6th Avenue Express). That plus the connection at Jay St. would allow... F train thru Rutgers St. diversion of one 6th Avenue service to Rutgers St. other two sixth avenue services to new tunnel to Grand St. move one Montague st. service to new tunnel to broadway express. The new tunnel should be able to handle three services--the Manh. Br. is doing that now as is Montague Street... Alternatively the F could run thru Cranberry St and cross over at West 4th. Some changes in 8th Avenue service would ease this by: Running the E local in Manhattan and Queens as it is now; Run the C local in Brooklyn and Express in manhattan below 53rd Street; Run A express in Brooklyn and Manhattan (as it is now with local in Brooklyn late nites and weekends with No C service); Run the F local in manhattan crossing over at Canal Street then to the 6th ave local at west 4th. (It is my opinion that a direct Chambers-6th Ave service is necessary anyway). Since there would be no 6th avenue local train coming up Houston STreet, there's no crossover bottleneck at West 4. -Dave
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757884
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:03 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on September 11, 1997 at 11:15:05: Both yours and Ed's suggestions are certainly valid possibilities. However, I don't think the MTA is going to build another East River tunnel anytime soon. They're going to try to reroute the B,D and Q trains off the Manhattan Bridge at the lowest cost possible. The tunnel under Rutgers Street is under-utilized; in fact I think it is the only B-division tunnel that is not accommodating more than one line under the East River. So the question is how to do this and minimize the impact to Grand St station users. Here's what I think is going to happen: * The connection between DeKalb Ave and the Rutgers St tunnel is going to happen. It has to. If the Manhattan Bridge is deemed unsafe to trains, you've just killed the 6th Avenue line trunk service leaving only the F as a local. So this connection will be built and the B, D and Q trains will use it, running on the current F route stopping at York St, Delancey St, 2nd Ave and Broadway Lafayette. I think some consideration would be given to reopening the long-closed Myrtle Ave station and we might even see studies on this, but I think in the final analysis this will not reopen. This might also be the project that closes the books on the 2nd Ave Subway. * A new tunnel will be built from the Cranberry St tunnel (A,C) on the Manhattan side, connecting to the current Grand St station. The F train will use this new connection. F trains will stop at Jay St and High St along the A/C route of today, use the Cranberry St tunnel and diverge from this tunnel to Grand Street. The tracks connecting Grand St and the Manhattan Bridge will be used for layovers or as a short storage area. The connection to the Manhattan Bridge will be severed. * A flyover will be built allowing B, D and Q trains stopping at Broadway-Lafayette to switch to the current routing west of Broadway-Lafayette (no crossovers anymore) and allowing F trains to switch to the current routing as well. Same heading towards Broadway-Lafayette for Brooklyn-bound trains. * N and R trains will forever more use the tunnel between Dekalb Ave and Whitehall St. * The extra trackage north of the new connection in Brooklyn will be used for storage. Here's some additional food for thought. Suppose an Engineering study is done to analyze the stress on the Bridge if the outermost tracks on both sides of the bridge were discontinued. Only the Manhattan bound track on the south side and the Brooklyn bound track on the north side would be used. If the stress was found to be within some acceptable tolerance, the idea of peak direction service on these tracks could become a real possibility. So the above scenario would be altered somewhat, as follows: * The connection between DeKalb Ave and the Rutgers St tunnel is still going to happen. The B and D trains will use it at all times, running on the current F route stopping at York St, Delancey St, 2nd Ave and Broadway Lafayette. The Q train will run over the north side of the bridge during rush hours only, and only in the peak direction, through Grand Street as it does now. During off-hours, it will use the new connection with the B and D. * The new tunnel will be built from the Cranberry St tunnel (A,C) on the Manhattan side, and F trains will still use it at all times. However, because of the peak-hour service over the Manhattan Bridge, the "fake" walls of the Grand St station will be torn down and the tracks for the 2nd Ave subway will be used by F trains coming out of the Cranberry St tunnel. The current Grand St tracks will be used by peak hour Q trains only during rush hours. A connection from the outside tracks to the current Chrystie St connection would be needed north of Grand St. * The flyover west of Broadway-Lafayette is still built, with the provision for Q trains to remain on the current route during rush hours. * N trains will use the south side of the Manhattan Bridge only during rush hours in the peak direction, stopping at the lower level of Canal St. At all other times, the N and R trains will use the tunnel between Dekalb Ave and Whitehall St. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757886
        Posted by: David Pirmann
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:04 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Mark S Feinman on September 11, 1997 at 13:43:13: That sounds like a *lot* more construction than an East River tunnel, especially when you consider having to tunnel under the streets. Seriously, a tunnel from the Cranberry tube to Grand Street, double flyover.. etc? It seems much easier to me to build the East River tunnel between DeKalb and Canal/Grand. Another idea would be to sever the connection to Canal Street entirely and forever. Then hook one track on the south side of the bridge to the southbound 6th Ave from Grand, and one track on the north side to the northbound 6th Ave (as it is now). Using one track on each side of the bridge would balance out the weight. This could be in addition to the Rutgers St. tunnel business. Another idea would be to build a short tunnel from DeKalb into the Cranberry Street tunnel, instead of or even in addition to the tunnel from DeKalb to Rutgers Street. Think of the routing possibilities that would open up... Any of the current B,D,Q,N,R,M could use the bridge, Rutgers St., Cranberry Street, or Montague Street! -Dave
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757887
        Posted by: Gary Jacobi
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on September 11, 1997 at 14:53:16: Two problems with using Cranberry/Fulton; 1) It is already very well used, whereas Rutgers is not, and 2) B'way-Nassau does not provide access to other lines trackage, while the Christie St complex does.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757890
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:08 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Mark S Feinman on September 11, 1997 at 13:43:13: why not rerout ALL trains to rutgers tunnel? and have a grand street/DeKalb shuttle???? P.S im not a new yourker so i dont know the track arrangements and such :(
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757896
        Posted by: David Pirmann
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Gary Jacobi on September 11, 1997 at 16:28:01: Chrystie Street connected the two bridges to 6th Avenue (Wburg and Manhattan)-- I'm not sure how it's relevant here. Broadway/Nassau doesn't need to provide track connections-- crossover back to the 6th Avenue would be done a few stops further up at West 4th Street. I think you'll see that the Canal Street Broadway Express will be closed for good... --Dave
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757900
        Posted by: hal
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on September 11, 1997 at 21:00:22: while we're on the subject of reroutings, let's look at north queens for a sec. You folks are giving the MTA enterly too much credit. Take a look at what they are doing with E,F, Q and G service. The question here is whether a queens blvd-63 st connection will ease congestion. It won't. It will make things worse. In the meantime, they have disrupted all services along the E, F and G lines to build the connection. Stupid. Now image what they'll do with the F and A,C service at Rutgers and Cranberry. What is needed is independent, intelligent thinking, something the MTA wizards are in very short supply of.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757908
        Posted by: Mark S Feinman
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:22 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on September 11, 1997 at 14:53:16: I guess my assumption with the routing changes is that it is more expensive to build a (relatively) long underwater tunnel that it is to have multiple construction sites that are of limited length. I have no idea if this is true or not. Existing crossovers could be used west of Broadway - Lafayette to cut down on construction costs but I think that alternative does introduce a bottleneck. --Mark
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757926
        Posted by: Hank Eisenstein
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:36 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Zack on September 11, 1997 at 18:58:30: the problem with this is still the Manhattan Bridge. But no one really goes from Grand St to Brooklyn. The demand is more for service uptown. -Hank
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757935
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Hank Eisenstein on September 12, 1997 at 22:18:35: Um, that is incorrect. Many chinese commute from Brooklyn to Grand Street and back, because their jobs are located in Chinatown. In fact, the problem has become so bad at night (they get off work at approx. 11pm) that the city councilwoman petitioned to have Grand Street expanded (more stairways, larger mezzanine and such). There was an article in the [7]Daily News in January about this (search the News archives under 'grand street'). It is busy enough that I believe that Grand Street should remain a link between the Brooklyn lines and the 6th Ave trunk. As for a new tunnel, I think it should carry the N, B, and D lines as a direct replacement for the Manhattan Bridge, with the Q going over the proposed link to the Rutgers St. tunnel. Let's face it, the current Broadway service is S-L-O-W. Restoring the N train as the Broadway Express would help service immensely. Since the tunnel will likely be only 2 tracks (though a third track to handle rush hour trains from a single direction would be nice), the Q can be switched over, since it goes to a different destination than the D and B anyhow.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757936
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Mark S Feinman on September 12, 1997 at 13:19:54: Well, for the underwater tunnel, it can be prefabricated like the 63rd Street one, and dropped into the river. The only disruption would be when the new tunnel construction breaks into the existing ones. With flyovers and such, it means reworking the existing tunnel innards, severely disrupting existing services. I agree, though, that with your planned routes a flyover at some point in the 6th Ave trunk is necessary.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757938
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Mark S Feinman on September 10, 1997 at 13:07:42: One thing about the article: I found the last two proposals pretty silly. Isn't the route used by the 2 and 3 packed enough already during the rush hours? And ferrying all those commuters by bus would be a major hassle. You'd need a bus terminal to receive those people. Of course, if the Brooklyn Bridge still carried trains....
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757941
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:37:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by David Pirmann on September 11, 1997 at 14:53:16: With the route possibilities you suggested, that would make the confusion over the Chrystie St connection look like mild dizziness 8-).
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 757970
        Posted by: Hank Eisenstein
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:38:11 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Andrew Huie on September 13, 1997 at 02:32:05: Before all the Manhattan Bridge crap started, the Q (as the QB) Ran Local on the Brighton Line and over the Manhattan Bridge and via Broadway Express to 57st/7ave. N Ran Via 4ave express, skiped DeKalb Av Rush Hours, and over the bridge B'way Exprress to 57st/7av. Another N service ran from 71/Continental to Whitehall St Local rush hours. The M ran Brighton Local to the Nassau St line via Tunnel. When the 6ave side of the Bridge closed, B ran via b'way xpress to Ditmars Blvd, D ran to 57st via B'way and also from 34st/6ave to 205st. Q kept to it's normal route, and the N was made local through the tunnel. A shuttle ran from Grand St to 57st/6av local. When B'way was recently reopened for a few months, the N returned to the bridge and B'way express, but the Q stayed on 6th. -Hank
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758005
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:38:38 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Hank Eisenstein on September 14, 1997 at 15:26:34: Yes, but in the event they do dig a tunnel to replace the manhattan bridge, it is unlikely they will put in 4 tunnels. Most likely it will be 2 tunnels; in which case, the capacity will probably max out at 3 lines. That means 1 line won't be going through the new tunnel. I picked the Q because the rerouting still allows it to service the stops north of Rockefeller center, which are difficult for any other line to serve. Remember, the QB predates 63rd Street tunnel (that's how long this s**t has been going on!) and resurrecting it could cause a service reduction on those stops (if the B train were to take over north of 47th-50th like before, alternating with the 168th St/Wash. Hgts.) or the elimination of 57th and 6th as a stop.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758247
        Posted by: Keranu the Pessimist
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:41:55 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Andrew Huie on September 16, 1997 at 01:38:50: Why don't they shut down everything which is vaguely orange-coloured on the map because that's going to happen at some point anyway. Let's face it, public transportation in NYC (like everywhere else) is doomed because of this stupid worship that everyone has of Mr Car. What else is closing since I last came here, probably a great deal. What's happened with the J/Z trains (if they still exist) did they restart the express (I can still dream), I've given up asking about the N Express and Manhattan Bridge because NONE OF IT WILL EVER HAPPEN. Everything is so slow to happen. At least in London, they said they were building the Jubilee line extension and they are FINISHING IT. Albeit 5 years late but that is still about 300 times faster than it would've happened in New York. Anyone got the same views as me?
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758251
        Posted by: John
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:41:59 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu the Pessimist on September 28, 1997 at 09:25:12: Here's another idea. During the peak hours, ban all private automobile from the island of Manhattan to make bus and rail services more effecient. This will obviusly create World War III, but it's just an idea.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758263
        Posted by: John da Stranger
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:42:08 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Andrew Huie on September 16, 1997 at 01:38:50: Maybe R's should be rerouted along the ababdoned track thaT LEADS TO THE Manhattan Bridge, Giving them a passage to Coney Island. N's should go to Bay Ridge by the normal route. The Av of Americas routes should be scattered. B to Bay Ridge, D to Coney Island via old B route, F to C.I. by the Brighton Line (Then it has to be rerouted onto the B/D/Q tunnel while the Q takes the Delancey Street Tunnel)And last but not least, Q also to C.I. on the current F route. (Following G) The R should stick to the current Q route.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758269
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:42:13 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu the Pessimist on September 28, 1997 at 09:25:12: AMEN TO THAT! I think the real reason they are taking so long with the Manhattan B. reconstruction, is that they are a bunch of incompetant boobs who don't want to deal with the problem. They figure, hey, if we procrastinate long enough, the general public will forget the N train used to run express on Broadway, via the MB, then we won't have to restore it. Never mind that they could have built a whole new bridge 3 times over by now. No, 1 rivet a day is enough. In fact they are doing such a wonderful job "reconstructing" the bridge that they forgot to MAINTAIN those sections. Rust stains are now plainly visible from the street, when before, even at its worst it didn't look this bad. Now, after years of incompetance, let's just say the project is hopeless before anyone starts probing. Then they can get rid of the B/D/Q, and turn the trackways into roadways, thus neatly "solving" their problem. Their replacements? Either buses, or overstuffing the existing tunnels. A new, 4-track tunnel might seem like common sense, but the way these boobs work, I'll be collecting social security (30+ years best case), or dead of old age (expected case).
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758338
        Posted by: Charles
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:43:06 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu the Pessimist on September 28, 1997 at 09:25:12: To All of you who think the subway system is going into the pits, I think you had better look at it from another angle. The system still operates 24 hours a day. We now have free bus to subway transfers. I will admit, our technology is extremely outdated. Things do happen, but MTA New York City subway is not as horrble as some people over dramitize about. In closing, if you know another way to get from the Tottenville SI TO 241 St in the bronx for 1.50 please feel free to let me know. These bridges are in a state of disrepair and decay, but there are alternate ways of getting to your destination.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758358
        Posted by: Larry Littlefield
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:43:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu the Pessimist on September 28, 1997 at 09:25:12: The Manhattan Bridge is a disaster. Due to existing service losses, it takes longer to travel to the high wage job center in Manhattan from the southern rim of Brooklyn than from many suburbs via (more heavily subusidized) commuter rail. People are moving out, because they can no longer afford to buy a house in close-in neighborhoods, without even considering the southern rim of Brooklyn. Moreover, over half a billion dollars has been spent in the past ten years just to keep the Manhattan Bridge from falling down. But don't blame the car. New York City has had no significant road investments for 30 years either. The bottom line is that New York City has spent less than the national average on transportation (education, parks, etc), as a share of the income of its residents, every year as far back as I can calculate -- despite taxes which are nearly double the national average. All the money goes to Medicaid: we have the richest doctors and the fanciest hospitals in the country. Check out the economics section of the city's Annual Report on Social Indicators if you doubt the data (I write it). There is no constituency for infrastructure investment in this state. Republicans want tax cuts, liberal Democrats want more money for non-profit health care and social services organizations (who now receive 75 percent of the money "for the poor"), and other Democrats want more cops and more benefits for public employee unions. And New York State is the cash cow of the nation. And New York City is the cash cow of New York State. And Brooklyn is the cash cow of New York City.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758425
        Posted by: Eric ng
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:44:14 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Charles on October 01, 1997 at 13:09:18: I don't think that it is a good idea to bulid a tunnel,because alot of chinese people depend on the B/D/and Q.And it will also spend money on the city.And,maybe while the tunnel is finished,there will be no more service to Grand street
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758433
        Posted by: John da stranger
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:44:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Keranu the Pessimist on September 28, 1997 at 09:25:12: YOU ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO RIGHT!
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758438
        Posted by: John da stranger
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:44:23 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Charles on October 01, 1997 at 13:09:18: Spoken like a sticker-upper for subways, man! That'll show those "Oh, Mass Transit are for cream puffs!" type!!!
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758439
        Posted by: John da stranger
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:44:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Andrew Huie on September 29, 1997 at 01:22:45: Yeah. Maybe by then I might be using 65+ bus passes while you are resting! (And maybe would have visited NYC like 1000 times!!!!)
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 758484
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Wed Oct 15 08:45:00 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Eric ng on October 04, 1997 at 14:45:21: I don't think anyone is seriously thinking about doing away with Grand Street. Like you said, it is fairly heavily used. The only reason tunnel supporters might want to bypass Grand St. is if the incline to the station from the tunnel is too steep (I'm not an engineer so I can't say).
        
        Subject: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 762087
        Posted by: Larry
        Date: Fri Jan 23 09:47:14 1998
        
        Let's review my own experience on this issue. I E-mailed the Mayor, whose staff E-mailed back that subway infrastructure is the MTA's responsibility, not the city's. The city's Department of Transportation has been fixing the bridge ($500 million so far after a bad decision not to replace it), and released a report stating that the bridge cannot carry the trains in the long run. Trucks may also have to go. The MTA, for its part, released an East River Crossing study which said the bridge could, and should, be fixed -- and why is it taking the city so long? TA staff said the threat to existing service is a potential disaster, but the city is responsible. My state representative, a Democrat, blames the Republican Governor. The former Democratic Governor, however, spent the state dry and deep into debt on hospitals, an important part of his base, while leaving the states roads, bridges, and transit systems to rot. Meanwhile, the MTA plans to connect the Long Island Railroad to Grand Central, diverting whatever federal money the region as a whole receives. The Port Authority, MTA, and New Jersey Transit recently released a proposal for another tunnel to give New Jersey commuters improved access to Manhattan. The Port Authority cannot afford, it says, to connect the subway to the airports because it needs the profits from New York City's airports to fund the PATH system. Thirty years ago, the Northeast paid in big time federal taxes to build interstates all over the U.S. Now that infrastructure in the Northeast, built earlier to a lower standard with local money, needs to be replaced, and the Northeast, is the least prosperous part of the country, it needs to be paid back. Unfair, says the rest of the country, which demands to cut ISTEA money for the Northeast, and transit money, which is concentrated in the Northeast, in general. And the Northeastern states continue to pay billions more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending, and Northeastern residents continue to follow their tax dollars elsehwhere. Its all pretty outrageous. But Brooklyn's representatives are completely focused on the needs of their paymasters in the health care industry, and protecting a Medicaid program whose cost per recipient is many times that of any other state. That's the deal. The idea is to start a company (oops, non-profit) that gets Medicaid money, earn enough to move to the suburbs, put the business in Manhattan, commute in on the Long Island Railroad or New Jersey Transit, and have the Brooklyn recipients take what's left of the subway to you. The choice isn't between spending on new infrastructure and existing infrastructure. The choice is between spending on public works and spending on health care, and spending the taxes paid by city residents in the city vs. spending it elsewhere. NYC is both the poor house and the cash cow of the state and nation -- at the same time! How long can we keep it up?
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 762122
        Posted by: Peter.Gray
        Date: Fri Jan 23 09:48:31 1998
        
        In Reply to: [8]Manhattan Bridge posted by Larry on January 15, 1998 at 08:50:33: Larry: You're absolutely right. You've got the 'New York shuffle' down pat. The main beat is 'do nothing, do nothing'. None of the political hacks in Brooklyn give a damn about the Manhattan Bridge or the subway system because there's far more graft & patronage money to be made/doled out on health services & Medicaid rip-offs. For $500M you could probably have built a whole new bridge (but then again, that would mean an end to the perpetual annuity of 'repair funds' to the construction companies 'fixing' the bridge; much better to continue to 'fix' it for the next 10 or 20 years until it finally collapses THEN get the contract to build a new one). But, as I've remarked in other postings (see my sermon on 'Priorities'), until private enterprise is back running NY's bridges & transit, it will only get worse. I guarantee it. Oh well, the passengers on the first train to plunge into the East River when metal fatigue finally causes the tracks to collapse will at least check out with some notoriety.
        
        Subject: Re: Manhattan Bridge
        Message Number: 762137
        Posted by: Mike Rothenberg
        Date: Fri Jan 23 09:49:16 1998
        
        In Reply to: [8]Re: Manhattan Bridge posted by Peter.Gray on January 15, 1998 at 20:28:27: Larry and Peterm thanks for continuing this topic. I began the topic "Priorities" and am glad it's not going away. In response to my earlier posting, someone (was it one of you?) suggested I get active with groups that are more concerned with things like the Manhattan Bridge problem than this forum. I noted that I was born and raised in Brooklyn but now live out west. But the need for people to do something remains and it is a topic of legitimate concern to this group's readers. The political analysis, though appearing cynical, may be accurate and that's the base from which activity to resolve the problem, satisfactorily for Brooklyn transit users, must start from. One thing that comes to my mind is that this issue needs to be brought to many kinds of groups, especially mainstream ones. I'm not totally familiar with the City political structure, but think there may be local area governing bodies. If this is the case, then a first step may be to develop a brief, but powerful, presentation, including an estimate of the number of riders affected within each local government zone and affect on business and property values in it. An overall view of the disruption impact should also be presented. A uniform presentation would work best. At each presentation, there should be laid out some continuing steps. One should be the development of a single group of people, from all the affected local Districts, to advance the cause. Developing a propactive single body that can address this, with politicians and others, is the best way to show that the issue will not die, and it will not be dropped until an appropriate solution is found, funded, and built. I found it interesting to read about plans for the LIRR to get to Grand Central, and for New Jersey transit to get a new tunnel to Manhattan. I would urge that all action about a Manhattan Bridge solution present the idea that maintenance and replacement of existing infrastructure is a higher priority than constructing new infrastructure. After all, if the transit agency cannot show it can maintain what it has, it will only be a matter of time until new infrastructure can also fall into disrepair status. And we do know what deferred maintenance leads to. One cannot predict the future path of an organization designed to lobby for the Manhattan Bridge permanent solution. But it could be valuable for transit users throughout the city since other situations, in Brooklyn and other boroughs, may also need attention in the future. The success of the group I propose, on the Manhattan Bridge problem, may force politicians and others to deal with those other issues, and not merely look away. Along that line, if I'm correct, there was a "60 Minutes" piece, some years ago, about a scandal (or scandals) in the New York City school system, involving theft and sale of supplies by employees to companies, which later sold them back to the school syste (of course some employees made made out very well with these illegal activities). There was also exposure of school janitors having secretarial staff, and leaving work early to work on their yachts!! Do you know what the feedback was on school system operations? Hopefully, its administration was pressured to make needed changes. I'm not implying that the same situation exists here, though the money spent on constant repairs rather than replacement may be an interesting topic to pursue. What I am suggesting is that exposure, as done in the "60 Minutes" segment, may be a valuable strategy to get the city and transit politicians to do what needs to be done here. Good luck!! Mike Rothenberg

Thread title: Interested in old 2-1/4 color slides? (755034)
Started on Sun May 25 12:19:57 1997, by Joel

Subject: Interested in old 2-1/4 color slides?
Message Number: 755034
Posted by: Joel
Date: Sun May 25 12:19:57 1997

2 � square transparencies represent a mixed collection of railroad equipment both steam, diesel, and electric traction. These slides are from the period of the mid-fifties to the early sixties. Unfortunately, I really can not give the proper nomenclature of the equipment or where they where taken. The best I can give you is a general overview. I am quite positive that each one of these slides is invaluable in its own right. All are in good condition and are Kodacrone transparencies. As best I can tell these are some of the locations & equipment I can figure 1. NY-Penn RR , 2. Erie RR, 3. RDC equipment, 4. Canadian Traction, 5. Rochester Transit, 6. Various trolley and electric traction lines throughout the US and Canada. In closing, I am afraid I am not a RR buff anymore, I would like to pass my collection on to someone who could appreciated them and share them with the rest of the world. These are irreplaceable and priceless for a true collector. I am only asking for $5 a transparency. I just sold 800 slides to a fellow RR buff, who was only interested in NY subway equipment. You can contact him at pirmann@quuxuum.org for a reference. Joel dimpydoo@melnibone.org

Thread title: Please participate in the Chicago Rail fan quiz.com Below!!! (755035)
Started on Sun May 25 12:52:46 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: Please participate in the Chicago Rail fan quiz.com Below!!!
Message Number: 755035
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Sun May 25 12:52:46 1997

PLEASE THER ARE PRIZES

Thread title: Jane's Urban Transport Systems book?? (755038)
Started on Sun May 25 19:07:36 1997, by Nathan

Subject: Jane's Urban Transport Systems book??
Message Number: 755038
Posted by: Nathan
Date: Sun May 25 19:07:36 1997

I heard from someone that "Jane's" made a book containing an exhaustive list of Urban Transport related material. Does anyone know if this publication exists, and if so, the exact name of the book so I can have it ordered? Thanx
- Subject: Re: Jane's Urban Transport Systems book??
- Message Number: 755070
- Posted by: steve lowenthal
- Date: Tue May 27 00:23:07 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Jane's Urban Transport Systems book?? posted by Nathan on May 25, 1997 at 19:07:36: i have a few of them ,,,,about 8,,,call me,for more info ,,,413 533 0396

Thread title: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) (755044)
Started on Mon May 26 06:48:14 1997, by Keranu

Subject: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
Message Number: 755044
Posted by: Keranu
Date: Mon May 26 06:48:14 1997

I have read on this web site that LEDs are to be used to display line numbers on the IRTs R-110A trains. Does this mean that only a white on black number will be shown? If so, this signals the beginning of the end of the coloured circles with the number/letter of train inside. Does anyone have any info on the likelihood of the R-110As showing the number inside an appropriately coloured circle. I reckon that colour coding really helps with getting around by subwayu and is an integral part of the system. I know that platform and station signs will of course still be colour coded by I think that trains should conform to the pattern too. Anyone have any info on destination indicators on R110s?
- Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
- Message Number: 755047
- Posted by: Dan Schwartz
- Date: Mon May 26 07:21:07 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Keranu on May 26, 1997 at 06:48:14: They are color-coded. I have ridden the "new technology" train on the #2 line several times; the "2" in a RED circle lights up on the front of the train. Someone on this board reported having seen this train in service as a #5, and that the front destination sign lit up green. If the train uses an RGB system of lights it can can generate any color. On the other hand, red and green are sufficient for any of the major N-S IRT trunk lines (1-6 and 9). With just those two colors, it could display appropriate colors for any IRT line except the #7 and the 42nd Street Shuttle. Since blue LEDs are rare, and equipment to accurately control intensity of the displayed colors when forming other colors would be an extra expense, I suspect that the train shows two colors only, but I don't know for sure. Displays on the sides of cars are not color-coded.
  - Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
  - Message Number: 755052
  - Posted by: Bryan Layne
  - Date: Mon May 26 12:16:52 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Dan Schwartz on May 26, 1997 at 07:21:07: You know this is what I dont understand.Why does the TA think its has to replace the destination signs with elecronic ones to begin with.I meen think about it,what is the purpose of this?Are the electronic signs easier to read?And how would they show up in the bright sun?I think it is a dumb idea and a stupid waste of money.You would think that the TA could find other,more resourcefull ways to spend to little money it has.
    - Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
    - Message Number: 755058
    - Posted by: M.J.S.
    - Date: Mon May 26 15:57:01 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Bryan Layne on May 26, 1997 at 12:16:52: Electronic signs SAVE the MTA money by eliminating delays caused by making the crew go through the entire train and crank the rollersigns, if you said that replacing rollersigns with LED displays on existing trains was a waste I'd agree, and since the MTA is already spending billions on new trains this is not a waste of money, unless you think that buying new trains is a waste of money.
      - Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
      - Message Number: 755061
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Mon May 26 16:43:28 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Bryan Layne on May 26, 1997 at 12:16:52: The vinyl sign rolls have distinct disadvantages. They are very costly to use because a crew member must set each one individually. They are also very costly to maintain. Nylon gears and ripped vinyl strips are time consuming to replace. On the other hand, the LCD signs on the R-44 and R-46 fleets are very cost effective in both maintenance and use. The utility of maintaining the traditional end sign colors is marginal. The same argument was used when the TA eliminated the Marker Lights. Anyone remember the Marker Light aspects of the IND/BMT lines. By the way, only one line still has marker lights, which one?
        
        Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755069
        Posted by: David Pirmann
        Date: Mon May 26 22:46:53 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 16:43:28: The PATH trains still use marker lights, but I didn't know the subway still did....
        
        Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755071
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue May 27 00:38:55 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by David Pirmann on May 26, 1997 at 22:46:53: I was on the #7 train Thursday night and was surprised to see that the markers were still in use.
        
        Subject: Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755077
        Posted by: Charles Fiori
        Date: Tue May 27 10:45:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by M.J.S. on May 26, 1997 at 15:57:01: Besides being the bane of a collector's existence, the electronic signs do serve a very useful and cost-efficient purpose. Whenever the TA wants to change services around, we don't have to go through a period where trains (or buses, for that matter) ply their routes with incorrect signage. Remember back in the early 80's, with reassignment of the R46's to the CC line, the TA had to have stickers made up and pasted on to existing Mylar curtains. It was a glaring symbol of the band-aid period the Authority endured. Also remember when the R46s were introduced, all side signs in the train could be controlled from the operator's cab. When the JFK was inaugurated, TA staffers had to figure out the bar coding system so that the JFK signs could be spliced on to the existing rolls.

Thread title: NYC Subway train lengths (755045)
Started on Mon May 26 06:50:35 1997, by Keranu

Subject: NYC Subway train lengths
Message Number: 755045
Posted by: Keranu
Date: Mon May 26 06:50:35 1997

I was wondering about the number of cars per train. Is this right? Corrections welcome: Max no. of cars per train IRT: All 10 cars long except no.3, 9 cars long BMT: All 8 cars long (R110s 9 cars long) IND: All 8 cars long (R110s 9 cars long)
- Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
- Message Number: 755051
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Mon May 26 11:36:34 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]NYC Subway train lengths posted by Keranu on May 26, 1997 at 06:50:35: The #7 line uses 11 car trains. The G line uses six 75' cars or in a rare case, eight 60' cars. The C, J, L, M & Z trains use eight 60' cars The A, B, E, F, N, & R trains use either ten 60' cars or eight 75' cars The D & Q lines use eight 75' cars. The FS line uses two 75' cars These are the usual consists. On weekends and on the late night hours, trains can be significantly shortened on some lines.
  - Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
  - Message Number: 755056
  - Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
  - Date: Mon May 26 15:18:49 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 11:36:34: Nine car trains on the '3' don't sound right. I know the '3' has a couple of short platforms but I didn't think there were any single units left. Are the R-62's set up in three car sets for that line instead of fives???
    - Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
    - Message Number: 755059
    - Posted by: M.J.S.
    - Date: Mon May 26 16:00:44 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 26, 1997 at 15:18:49: R62s are single units.
      - Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
      - Message Number: 755060
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Mon May 26 16:33:29 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by M.J.S. on May 26, 1997 at 16:00:44: The R-62As are single car units. The R-62s are permanently linked in 5 car consists.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755063
        Posted by: Peter Rosa
        Date: Mon May 26 19:19:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 11:36:34: While the Franklin Shuttle indeed has only two cars open for passengers, there are actually four cars in the consist (two of which are shut off). At least four cars are needed in order to generate sufficient braking force. That length also may be necessary to avoid power loss on third-rail gaps.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755067
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon May 26 21:08:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Peter Rosa on May 26, 1997 at 19:19:49: It's not often that I tell someone that they are absolutely wrong but in this case, I feel that I must. Braking force is not dependent on train length. That is a common misconception. NYCT cars, including the R-68s used on the Franklin Ave. Shuttle are designed to have a maximum braking rate of 3.2 MPH/Sec. The braking rate is set by each car independently to compensate for variations in customer loading. A single car and an eight car teain have exactly the same braking rates. As for 3rd rail gaps, once again you are mis-informed. The trains which pick up the money from the token booths are comprised of 2 R-15s or R-22s. The trains are 102 feet long and have no problem with gaps. The 2 car R-68 trains used on the Franklin Shuttle are 150 feet long. The change from 4 car R-32s to 2 car R-68s on the FS was made several months ago due to changes in train operation on that line.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755075
        Posted by: Bill
        Date: Tue May 27 07:47:07 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 21:08:33: The Money trains do have problems at crossovers ( switches). If they are not moving fast enough to pick up the 3rd rail on the other side they will stall. I have seen one train at Atlantic Ave. (IRT) stall over a switch, one of the crew had to get 3rd rail jumpers and move the train till it picked up 3rd rail on the other side of switch.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755085
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue May 27 15:06:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Bill on May 27, 1997 at 07:47:07: T'is rare but it does happen. That's why 3rd rail jumpers are stored around most yard leads and interlockings. This by no means alters my answer to the original question.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755088
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Tue May 27 15:55:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 16:33:29: I never realized that that was the case. Question: Are the R-62 cars double ended as the R-33 (7) cars are or single ended?
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755092
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Tue May 27 17:11:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 27, 1997 at 15:55:24: Yes, R-62's are double ended or single units (as opposed to married pairs).
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755096
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue May 27 19:57:19 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 27, 1997 at 15:55:24: The R-62s have an operating cab at each end of the 5-car link. It would be useless to have a cab elsewhere since the the cars are permanently linked. The couplers and electric portions were removed and replaced by link bars and litton connectors. These cars run only on the #4 line. The R-62As, on the 1, 2, 3, 6, & 9 lines are single car units. Incidently, the R-68As are being similarly linked into 4-car units. The R-68s are not.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755101
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Tue May 27 22:55:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 19:57:19: R62As are not used on the #2 line. The #2 is all R33s with an occasional R29 and the R110A. However, Kawasaki R62s did run as #2s for a short while in '83 and '84. Why they didn't stay there, I'll never understand. Just another one of those bonehead TA decisions.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755105
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue May 27 23:39:51 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Quigebo on May 27, 1997 at 22:55:21: You are correct. The 2 was an errant key stroke. They do run redbirds on the #2 line. However, I disagree with your assessment that putting the R-62s on the #4 line was a "BoneHead" idea. There are 14 maintenance shops throughout the system. The revenue fleet is spread over 13 of them. The idea is to give each shop enough cars to meet its' service requirements while limiting the number of different car contracts assigned to each. That way fewer different parts have to be stocked at each location and maintenance is standardized to a greater degree. When the fleet assignments are made things like spare factors, type of main control groups & type of brakes are considered. Unfortunately, the desires of rail fans are not considered as important.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755162
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Thu May 29 19:42:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 23:39:51: No, putting the R62s on the 4 wasn't a "Bonehead" idea. It needed new equipment to replace its aging R17s. But I saw the R62s and R62As on the 2, in fact I rode a R62 2 train in 1983. Taking the 62s off the 2 line was wrong, I think. Besides plenty of R33s still plow the 4 line along with 62s. It would make more sense for the 4 to be all R33s and the 2 to be split between 33s and 62s (the R110A could also be assigned to the 4, like I've seen in artist rederings and diagrams of it) because the 4 has that tiny yard below Tracey Towers while the 2 has the massive 238th Street Yard. By the way, they make deadhead moves with 62s and 62As to 238th for repairs during middays and weekends, so they must have spare parts for both Redbirds and 62s.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755165
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Thu May 29 21:47:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 16:33:29: Yes, but they weren't like that originally, I think it was to test the R110 type married pair system.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755169
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 29 22:10:27 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by M.J.S. on May 29, 1997 at 21:47:12: In reality, the R-62s were linked into 5 car units for a far less visionary goal. They were linked to improve performance and to save money. By linking them, components such as Master Controllers, Brake Valves, Master Door Controls and Electric Portions & Couplers could be removed. Especially in the case of the electric portions, removing them really improved the performance. By removing the other components, savings were achieved in material and maintenance. This is not new technology. The type of linking done on the R-62s is the same as the linking which has been used on the R-32s and up.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755193
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sat May 31 00:08:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Quigebo on May 29, 1997 at 19:42:26: First, not all red birds are created equal. Some have GE propulsion packages while others have Westinghouse. Some have NY Air Brake brake packages while others have WABCO. Current practice calls for cars of different types not to run together. This is adhered to except for one shop where it is okay to run NY Air Brake and WABCO cars in the same train. (this only holds true for passenger service). The point being, there may not be sufficient RedBirds of one type to meet the service plan you propose. As for R-62s and redbirds going into 239th St., these trains may be drags from 207th Street overhaul shop, dropping off repaired cars or picking up bad order cars at their respective shops. I don't believe that any maintenance shop other than Jerome will handle R-62s except in an emergency.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755259
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Mon Jun 2 17:13:47 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 31, 1997 at 00:08:21: Yes, that makes sense. From the sounds of the brake release on each different type of Redbird, you can tell they have different propulsion packages. Which would explain why R62s and 62As don't run in the same train, nor the R68s and 68As. Speaking of 62s, I only saw them head for 239th twice, so they must have been emergency moves. But I see Bombardier R62As head for 239th during middays and weekends a lot, probably for repairs, and two sets of 62As provide all shuttle service on the 5 at night (OPTO). There are, however, plenty of R33s, because they run on five lines, with the 2 getting the lion's share of the pairs, and the 7 having all the single R33s. If stainless steel cars did run on the 2, they probably would have to be Bombardier R62As. But there aren't enough of the other Redbirds. And it is better to standardize the fleet of each line, even though the N has four different types of car (R32, R40, R68, R68A). BTW, do you know what type of brakes are used on each Redbird? I know they operate R26s, 28s, and 29s in the same train on the 5, while R36s and 33 singles are used in the same trains on the 7 (for 11-car trains, except in summer). And I know that paired R33s don't operate with other Redbirds.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755287
        Posted by: Dave
        Date: Tue Jun 3 09:17:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Quigebo on June 02, 1997 at 17:13:47: > R-26, R-27, R-28, R-29, R-30, R-33 and R-36 all use W.A.B. Co. "SMEE" w/ME-42B brake equipment.
        
        Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths
        Message Number: 755288
        Posted by: Dave
        Date: Tue Jun 3 09:20:26 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Dave on June 03, 1997 at 09:17:16: Sorry, I meant to type "W.A.B. Co. "SMEE" w/ME-42B brake valve

Thread title: What are R142s?! (755048)
Started on Mon May 26 08:12:08 1997, by Keranu

Subject: What are R142s?!
Message Number: 755048
Posted by: Keranu
Date: Mon May 26 08:12:08 1997

I had never heard of them until I read this site. Are they newer than the R110S?! (I'm guessing yes). What lines will they be used on? Are there designs for both Division A AND B lines? Can they show COLOURED circles on the front of the train? Do they use LEDs? Have any prototypes been built? I actually live nearly 5,000 miles from NYC so excuse me if the answers to some of these questions are really obvious. I haven't ridden the subway since April when I was on holiday. Have the R110s been introduced full-time on any lines yet?
- Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
- Message Number: 755050
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Mon May 26 11:28:55 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]What are R142s?! posted by Keranu on May 26, 1997 at 08:12:08: The R-142s are the new-tech cars that have been ordered for the IRT. They will be used to replace the 'RedBirds' on all lines that currently use them including the 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. The R-110s, both A and B division versions have been in service (more or less) since 1993. There is one of each.
  - Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
  - Message Number: 755095
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Tue May 27 18:01:33 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 11:28:55: The R-110s are not in revenue service yet, but they have been tested in passenger service (although I haven't seen one). I think they will go into revenue service beginning in 1999. I'll be sorry to see the Redbirds go, though.
    - Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
    - Message Number: 755128
    - Posted by: Nathan
    - Date: Thu May 29 00:51:37 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: What are R142s?! posted by John on May 27, 1997 at 18:01:33: I thought the the R-110's were test trains, the R-110's that you say will go into service in 1999, will those be pretty much exact replicas of the Bombardier prototype R-110's?? PS:Do the R-110's use AC motors?
      - Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
      - Message Number: 755167
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Thu May 29 22:02:40 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Nathan on May 29, 1997 at 00:51:37: Lets try to go through it one more time. There are two trains. The R-110A and the R-110B. The 110A was built to operate on the IRT while the 110B was built to operate on the BMT/IND. The two trains are the only two R-110s and there will never be any others. They were once test trains. They ran empty except for TA personnel checking their performance. After about 6 months of testing, they went into service in 1993. They are now considered revenue equipment. They operate in passenger service. They are both prototype trains on which the R-142 and R-143 will be based. They are the ones that will go into service in 1999.
        
        Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
        Message Number: 755218
        Posted by: Keranu
        Date: Sun Jun 1 13:06:49 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Steve on May 29, 1997 at 22:02:40: OK, so there is one more question that needs to be asked. Do the nos. following the "R" mean anything (I suspect not) and if not, why is there such a big jump. If the last trains were R-68s, surely the next ones should be R70s or R80s or something. Or is this designation just to make them sound kinda' ultra technology and futuristic. Am I right in saying that the TA is standardising BMT/IND to 67' long instead of 60' or 75'?
        
        Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
        Message Number: 755222
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Sun Jun 1 13:47:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Keranu on June 01, 1997 at 13:06:49: The # after the R does mean something - the Revenue Contract #, and it's not given exclusively to subway cars. Work trains, diesel locos, garbage trains, tank cars, and a lot of other equipment for the subway can recieve R #s. That explains the huge gaps in R #s when it comes to subway cars themselves
        
        Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
        Message Number: 755223
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Sun Jun 1 13:51:22 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Keranu on June 01, 1997 at 13:06:49: BTW, you're right about standardizing the length. The TA is doing that at 67', the length of the BMT Standards cars. This began with the R110B test train that's running on the A (and occasionally the C) line
        
        Subject: Re: What are R142s?!
        Message Number: 755277
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon Jun 2 22:17:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: What are R142s?! posted by Keranu on June 01, 1997 at 13:06:49: From what I've been told, the 'R' refers to Rapid (as opposed to surface).

Thread title: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions (755054)
Started on Mon May 26 12:48:04 1997, by Harry R

Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
Message Number: 755054
Posted by: Harry R
Date: Mon May 26 12:48:04 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by Wayne Johnson on April 28, 1997 at 10:32:28: Does anybody have any info regarding the park/ride service at Shea ? Cost ? Connection to 7 Train ? Safety at the park/ride lot ? directions etc Thanks
- Subject: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
- Message Number: 754572
- Posted by: Keranu
- Date: Mon Apr 28 05:31:59 1997
  
  1) Will the N train ever use the Manhattan Bridge again? 2) Why so many abandoned express tracks in Brooklyn? 3) On a recent journey from Lawrence St to Lex Av on the R, it seemed that it would be profitable to use the express tracks north of Prince. I know there used to be an express, why was it not reinstated? 4) How do you know whether the 6 is running express in the Bronx or not? Boards in the windows seem to show different messages in each car 5) Why was the M stopped at Chambers St, was there low ridership in Bklyn? 6) I miss the graffitti 7) Where will the 21 St-Queensbridge extension go? Queens Blvd? 8) Unlike London, I get the feeling that subway ridership is falling because of the numerous reductions in services (abandoned Express tracks). With the growth in car traffic (similar to London), maybe more incentives to use the subway are in order. With the advent of Metrocard, could high frequency user fare reductions not be made? London Underground started booming in the '80s after the Zonecard was invented meaning you pay once and can use the subway for the whole day. 9) Why were there so many one-way express trains in the Bronx? Why aren't there now? 10) Why can't South Ferry (1,9) and 135 St (3) Stations fit a whole train into the platform? 11) I still miss the graffitti (I've only seen it in photos) 12) Was the centre track of the Astoria branch ever used? 13) Why do so many trains go to Coney Island? It is actually desolate 14) Why does the C train only go to Euclid Av instead of Rock Park? 15) Does skip-stop really work? It seems to on the 1/9 but apparently it is still a very slow trudge through Queens on the J/Z 16) Why no digital boards telling you when the next train is coming and where it is going? In London, almomst every station has this. 17) Which one is the Montague St tunnel? 18) What train used the express tracks on the F between Jay St and Church Avenue? 19) What did they actually DO to the trains to make it that you can't spray paint them, or is it just that they keep them in closed areas. 20) What is the centre track on the 7 WEST of 61 St for? 21) Do many people use the L? No express - ever! 22) Do skip stop services operate both ways at rush hours or only in the peak direction 23) The TA claims that all of its stations are open seven days a week, 24 hours a day. What trains actually serve Broad St (J,M,Z) at weekends?
  - Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
  - Message Number: 754578
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Mon Apr 28 10:32:28 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by Keranu on April 28, 1997 at 05:31:59: Keranu, I can't answer all of your questions, some of them I can. I will number my answers to correspond with your question. I'm sure my fellow subway fans will fill in the answers that I miss. 1 N service over Manhattan Bridge - The N service was rerouted to the tunnel when the Manhattan Bridge work on the North side (6 Ave) tracks began as there would be too many trains using the bridge/Broadway express tracks. At that time the bridges south tracks were used by the B,D,& Q trains. Those trains are now using the north side tracks to/from the 6 Ave line. I understand that work on the south side tracks is still in progress. I'm guessing that the N train will return to the Manhattan bridge (with Broadway express service) when the work is completed. 3 Yes, there used to be express service on Broadway. The R was always a local, but the N and the old QB (which became the Q) used the Manhattan bridge and the express tracks. Again, I'm guessing that express service will be restored when the Manhattan bridge work is completed. 4 #6 trains express in the Bronx- The easiest way to spot an Pelham (Bronx) express #6 train is by the destination. During the hours of operation (of the express) northbound Pelham express trains terminate at Pelham Bay Park, while northbound Pelham local trains terminate at 177st-Parkchester. Also many of the R-62A cars have the word "express" under the #6. 6 Graffiti - Sorry, I'm very happy that graffiti is gone. 7 21st-Queensbridge extention - Yes, the extention will feed into the Queens Blvd. line. 8 Ridership - Yes, I believe ridership has fallen for a variety of reasons. Some are: Service cuts, safety concerns, conditions and lack of incentives. 9 Bronx express lines - Most lines in the other boroughs have 4 tracks which permit express service in both directions at the same time, while all lines in the bronx have only 3 tracks which of course would only permit express service in one direction at a time. Some still exist today on the #'s 5, 6 and the D lines. 10 Short IRT platforms - The #3 platform is actually the Northbound platform at 145th Street. It was never extended to the current length. It is still the length of platforms when service began in 1904. 11 I hope it stays in the photos 13 Coney Island - Remember, it wasn't always desolate and the yard is also nearby. 14 C service to Rockaway Park - More budget cuts??? 15 Skip-stop - My opinion is that it works, but not a big deal. If trains are spaced properly I guess I can be successful. 17 Montague Tunnel - The Montague street tunnel runs between Manhattan and Brooklyn and it is used by the M,N and R trains. 19 Graffiti resisitant cars - It's not that you can't spray them, because you can, but the materials used created an alloy in which graffiti is easily removed from the cars. 20 Centre track 7 line - This is the track for peak direction express service. Express trains normally operates make express stops between Willets Pt.-Shea Stadium and Queensboro Plaza, but a major construction project on the Queens Blvd. viaduct forced the NYCTA to suspend express service between Queensboro Plaza and 61st St-Woodside. The work was recently completed and full express service will resume soon and has already be reinstated. 22 Skip stop - Skip-stop operates in both directions during hours or operation. 23 All stations are served 24 hours a day. The are either served with connecting service (such as Broad St.) or in a couple of cases by bus (145 St Lenox Ave & 148th St Lenox Terminal.)
    - Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
    - Message Number: 754583
    - Posted by: David Pirmann
    - Date: Mon Apr 28 14:11:54 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by Wayne Johnson on April 28, 1997 at 10:32:28: Re: Ridership It's actually UP. I heard that the #7 had the largest increase of any of the lines--somewhere around 20%!!! Ridership of most of the area's train systems are up (NJ Transit, PATH in particular). PATH had its best year since 1964 last year, even considering NJ Transit's decreasing use of Hoboken Terminal. --Dave
      - Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
      - Message Number: 754598
      - Posted by: Andrew Huie
      - Date: Mon Apr 28 20:53:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by David Pirmann on April 28, 1997 at 14:11:54: I had forgotten that they are trying to push Hoboken trains into Penn Station now. Does Penn Station have that much extra capacity? Also, what will happen to Hoboken? Will it no longer service electric trains?
        
        Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
        Message Number: 754603
        Posted by: John
        Date: Mon Apr 28 21:57:33 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by Andrew Huie on April 28, 1997 at 20:53:05: Hoboken will continue to serve the Morris/Essex County lines of NJ Transit, except that some of them will now go directly to midtown Manhattan (hence the term Midtown Direct).
        
        Subject: Re: Numerous NYC Subway Questions
        Message Number: 754615
        Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
        Date: Tue Apr 29 09:47:32 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Numerous NYC Subway Questions posted by Keranu on April 28, 1997 at 05:31:59: RE: #18 The F was the express train and prior to Chrystie St. the D. The G (GG in those days) was extended from Smith-9th to Church Av as a local. Evenings and Weekends the GG was cut back to Smith-9th and the F (or D) ran local.

Thread title: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) (755057)
Started on Mon May 26 15:52:27 1997, by M.J.S.

Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
Message Number: 755057
Posted by: M.J.S.
Date: Mon May 26 15:52:27 1997

In Reply to: [6]End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Keranu on May 26, 1997 at 06:48:14: When you post to an AMERICAN site, talking about an AMERICAN subway, please speak AMERICAN.
- Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
- Message Number: 755073
- Posted by: Nathan
- Date: Tue May 27 01:35:49 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by M.J.S. on May 26, 1997 at 15:52:27: >> What was so un-american about that? I understood it fine, (is that because I am not american??) geesh!!! PPPFFFFFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB!!!!
  - Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
  - Message Number: 755074
  - Posted by: Noname
  - Date: Tue May 27 07:41:30 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by M.J.S. on May 26, 1997 at 15:52:27: Please take your provincialism to some other site. The beauty of this medium is that we can communicate with people of all shapes, sizes, faiths, languages, etc. You must be from a very closed off part of the world if how someone spells the word 'colour' does not conform to your myopic standards!
    - Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
    - Message Number: 755076
    - Posted by: Keranu
    - Date: Tue May 27 10:31:36 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Noname on May 27, 1997 at 07:41:30: Well said!
      - Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
      - Message Number: 755081
      - Posted by: Keranu
      - Date: Tue May 27 11:13:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by M.J.S. on May 26, 1997 at 15:52:27: Would you go this mad about a misprint? Besides, the language is called ENGLISH. I think we invented it. Sorry if my spelling of COLOR caused you great distress. You can get down from the balcony and untie the noose. I will try and speak AMERICAN. NEIGHBOR, METER, CENTER, etc as opposed to neighbour, metre, centre.
        
        Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755082
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Tue May 27 12:59:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Keranu on May 27, 1997 at 11:13:10: Keranu, Unfortunately there are some insensitive, uptight and rude people out there but, please be assured that he/she does not represent us all.
        
        Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755108
        Posted by: Ben-Zion Cassouto
        Date: Wed May 28 04:12:30 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Keranu on May 27, 1997 at 11:13:10: Don't forget dialing as opposed to dialling...
        
        Subject: Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As)
        Message Number: 755112
        Posted by: Keranu
        Date: Wed May 28 15:20:10 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Ben-Zion Cassouto on May 28, 1997 at 04:12:30: We write the date differently too in the UK. Day/Month/Year Today is 28/5/97 in UK and 5/28/97 in US. Weird! I didn't know about "dialling" I say "to-mah-to" and you say "to-may-to"

Thread title: SUBWAY (755066)
Started on Mon May 26 21:06:19 1997, by Mike Redondo

Subject: SUBWAY
Message Number: 755066
Posted by: Mike Redondo
Date: Mon May 26 21:06:19 1997

What is the most used subway in the New York City area and how many people go on it daly and at the most used time?
- Subject: Re: SUBWAY
- Message Number: 755080
- Posted by: Keranu
- Date: Tue May 27 11:05:47 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]SUBWAY posted by Mike Redondo on May 26, 1997 at 21:06:19: I am not sure, but I have heard that the most over-used train is the E train from World Trade Center, Manhattan - Jamaica Center, Queens. According to the Queens Cordon report thing, some of these trains are carrying more than 27% over-capacity as they head through the tunnels between Manhattan and Queens (Lex Av - Ely Av) The #7 train had the biggest ridership rise last year though I don't know what this ranks the line in terms of ACTUAL ridership. PS: This is only a suggestion, but you should make your title more specific since there are A LOT of queries about the subway. This means that if the title is on a subject people know about, they will read it and more will respond.
  - Subject: Re: SUBWAY
  - Message Number: 755094
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Tue May 27 17:58:04 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: SUBWAY posted by Keranu on May 27, 1997 at 11:05:47: I think the number 6 (Lex-Pelham) also ranks up there. By experience, I also say the number 7, the D, and sometimes the number 2 or 4. By the way, a recent survey showed that, in terms of service, the B is the worst line in the system, and the #7 is the best. P.S. - Why does the C train run with only four cars on the weekend?

Thread title: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to MJS) (755068)
Started on Mon May 26 21:27:39 1997, by Charles

Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to MJS)
Message Number: 755068
Posted by: Charles
Date: Mon May 26 21:27:39 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains posted by M.J.S. on May 23, 1997 at 21:29:12: The R110A is a test train the pre cursor to the R142 model. I am not familiar with the Revenue contract R130. The R110B is the Pre Cursor to the R143. By the way, when the R110A ran on the 5 it was not able to stop at 14 St. The train is also hard to chase because it is out of service more often than it is in service.
- Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to MJS)
- Message Number: 755124
- Posted by: Andrew Huie
- Date: Wed May 28 23:06:34 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to MJS) posted by Charles on May 26, 1997 at 21:27:39: Why wasn't able to stop at 14th Street? Wasn't it built to standard IRT dimensions?

Thread title: Money Train? (755083)
Started on Tue May 27 14:09:51 1997, by Shig

Subject: Money Train?
Message Number: 755083
Posted by: Shig
Date: Tue May 27 14:09:51 1997

I have seen the word "money train" several times in this board. I also remember there was a movie about subway train collecting money at each station. Does such "money train" really exist in NYC subway?
- Subject: Re: Money Train?
- Message Number: 755084
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Tue May 27 14:31:57 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Money Train? posted by Shig on May 27, 1997 at 14:09:51: They are referred to as 'Collectors' and they do exist.
  - Subject: Re: Money Train?
  - Message Number: 755089
  - Posted by: Peter Rosa
  - Date: Tue May 27 16:17:31 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Money Train? posted by Shig on May 27, 1997 at 14:09:51: Yes, there is a money train (in fact, there may be more than one) which makes pickups from token booths in the nighttime hours. There is a special platform off the N and R line in Brooklyn, so the money train can unload directly into the basement of TA headquarters. The days of the money train might be numbered, though; I've heard that the TA is making increased use of regular armored trucks.
    - Subject: Re: Money Train?
    - Message Number: 755093
    - Posted by: John
    - Date: Tue May 27 17:51:29 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: Money Train? posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 14:31:57: The money trains (also called revenue collection cars) do indeed exist, but not in the form as in the movie. The real trains are former passenger R-21s (I think), and I think the one in the movie was also an R-21, but the real trains are painted yellow with diagonal black stripes on the ends of the cars.

Thread title: R-46 Side Signs (755086)
Started on Tue May 27 15:13:31 1997, by on May 27, 1997 at 15:13:31:

Subject: R-46 Side Signs
Message Number: 755086
Posted by: on May 27, 1997 at 15:13:31:
Date: Tue May 27 15:13:31 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Charles Fiori on May 27, 1997 at 10:45:46: The R-46 Identra Side Sign system was nothing
- Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
- Message Number: 755091
- Posted by: Charles Fiori
- Date: Tue May 27 16:49:58 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]R-46 Side Signs posted by on May 27, 1997 at 15:13:31: Your point being, O mysterious one?
  - Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
  - Message Number: 755097
  - Posted by: Jim
  - Date: Tue May 27 19:58:54 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]R-46 Side Signs posted by on May 27, 1997 at 15:13:31:
    - Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
    - Message Number: 755098
    - Posted by: Jim
    - Date: Tue May 27 20:04:59 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]R-46 Side Signs posted by on May 27, 1997 at 15:13:31: Sorry that my message was truncated. To repeat what I had tried to say: The R-46 Identra Sign System was nothing short of a disaster. By 1980, it was virtually inoperable on the entire 754 car fleet. (there were 754 at one time). By 1982, RTO (rapid transit operations) prohibited the train crews from using it, hence each car had to have both signs manually cranked into position. This system relied heavily on motors and gears which due to binding and spikes in torque, ripped the sign rolls. If the sign rolls didn't rip, the plastic gears split. This is not to be confused with the vastly superior Luminator LCD system on the R-44s and R-46s...
      - Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
      - Message Number: 755102
      - Posted by: John
      - Date: Tue May 27 23:07:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Jim on May 27, 1997 at 20:04:59: How laborsome is it to crank those signs? Do the people that crank the signs (do the motormen do it, or the conductors?) ever get arthritis or similar problems caused by cranking?
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755106
        Posted by: Jim
        Date: Tue May 27 23:50:18 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by John on May 27, 1997 at 23:07:44: Lets take a line like the R line - where the R-46s are utilized. It is not uncommon for the terminal signs on an average R train to be changed 3 or 4 times in a day (from Whitehall to Canal St. or City Hall etc.) On a 10 car R-32, that's 20 signs to change. If each one takes 1 minute plus walking time, the time is considerable. Usually the conductor does it alone or with the help of a second conductor. On the R-46, either the train Operator or the Conductor enter a 3 digit security code and then a 2 or 3 digit route code and it's done in under 10 seconds. We, of course do not want to mention repetitive motion injuries like Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or arthritis, do we?
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755109
        Posted by: Charles Fiori
        Date: Wed May 28 07:51:37 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Jim on May 27, 1997 at 20:04:59: Vastly superior, but not cool. I am pleased to have in my collection a complete original roll of an R46 side sign (F to 2d Avenue! GG to Church Avenue, etc.) and though theoretically the Luminators make much more sense, the extra colors and even the little maps inside were fun.
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755120
        Posted by: Curious Zack
        Date: Wed May 28 21:24:53 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Jim on May 27, 1997 at 23:50:18: i thought the R-32's signs are Lumitaor's?
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755127
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Wed May 28 23:53:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Curious Zack on May 28, 1997 at 21:24:53: The R-32 & R-38 have Luminator 'Flip Dot' end signs but have conventional side signs.
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755129
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Thu May 29 02:30:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 23:53:12: how come theay dident make the whole car Luminator "Flip Dot" sings?
        
        Subject: Re: R-46 Side Signs
        Message Number: 755204
        Posted by: steve
        Date: Sun Jun 1 00:55:05 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R-46 Side Signs posted by Zack on May 29, 1997 at 02:30:35: The flip dot signs and LCD signs have 35 pixcels per character. The Side Signs have 32 characters each (16 inside & 16 outside). That would be about 1,000 moving parts per sign if flip dots were used as compared to no moving parts for the LCD signs. LCD signs, therefore, are easier and cheaper to buy and maintain.

Thread title: Re: Marker Lights (755087)
Started on Tue May 27 15:17:30 1997, by Steve

Subject: Re: Marker Lights
Message Number: 755087
Posted by: Steve
Date: Tue May 27 15:17:30 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 00:38:55: It seems that I spoke too soon. I was on the #2 this morning and the red birds there also had marker lights. It would seem that they were nor removed during overhaul. This is in contrast with the R-32s and R-38s where the cars were equipped qith markers when new but were removed during overhaul in 1988-89. At the present time, no B division car has markers.
- Subject: Re: Marker Lights
- Message Number: 755122
- Posted by: Andrew Huie
- Date: Wed May 28 22:41:06 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: Marker Lights posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 15:17:30: Don't forget the R40's had marker lights (the original slanted fronts, not the later, standard ones. By marker lights I assume you mean the local/express lights in the front). They were removed when they were overhauled. Originally the lights were located side-by-side above the center door.
  - Subject: Re: Marker Lights
  - Message Number: 755126
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Wed May 28 23:51:30 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: Marker Lights posted by Andrew Huie on May 28, 1997 at 22:41:06: I remember the express/local lights on the R-40S. I don't remember if the 10s had them but every contract upto and including the Slants had them. That is not what I was referring to. There were 2 round lights near the top of the car & forming a rectangle with the tail lights. When at the rear of the train, they were always red, however, on the front of the train, the motorman had 2 handles, one for each. He'd rotate the handles, thereby changing the color of the marker. He had a choice of Red, White, Yellow or Green on either marker making 16 possible combinations. Every route had it's own particular combination. This way, the towers could easily tell if a train was going via 6th Ave or 8th Ave or Crosstown.
    - Subject: Re: Marker Lights
    - Message Number: 755143
    - Posted by: Mark S Feinman
    - Date: Thu May 29 12:31:31 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Marker Lights posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 23:51:30: Just checked a picture on my wall of the R-10s. They had both the local/express lights AND the marker lights. --Mark
      - Subject: Re: Marker Lights
      - Message Number: 755146
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Thu May 29 14:07:36 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Marker Lights posted by Mark S Feinman on May 29, 1997 at 12:31:31: Thank you for the update. I just checked 'my' R-12s and they had them also.
        
        Subject: Re: Marker Lights
        Message Number: 755166
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Thu May 29 21:55:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Marker Lights posted by Steve on May 27, 1997 at 15:17:30: The Redbird markers don't seem to be used, I see them always set to red. They probably just didn't spend the money to remove them.
        
        Subject: Re: Marker Lights
        Message Number: 755263
        Posted by: John
        Date: Mon Jun 2 17:26:43 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Marker Lights posted by Steve on May 29, 1997 at 14:07:36: Does anybody know the different combinations of colors and the corresponding terminals? For example, what was the combination of colors for South Ferry, for Pelham Bay Park, Washington Heights, etc.

Thread title: Revenue Service (755103)
Started on Tue May 27 23:12:15 1997, by Steve

Subject: Revenue Service
Message Number: 755103
Posted by: Steve
Date: Tue May 27 23:12:15 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: What are R142s?! posted by John on May 27, 1997 at 18:01:33:

Thread title: R-110s - Revenue Service (755104)
Started on Tue May 27 23:23:45 1997, by Steve

Subject: R-110s - Revenue Service
Message Number: 755104
Posted by: Steve
Date: Tue May 27 23:23:45 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: What are R142s?! posted by John on May 27, 1997 at 18:01:33: I beg to differ with you - or should I say New Your City Transit disagrees with you. Let me quote from page #7 of the " NYC Transit Facts & Figures", "Nov. 19, 1992 - NYC Transit unveils two New Technology Test Trains at a Transit Museum open house. With their development based on customer input, the trains feature improvements in communications, safety, secuity and comfort. In the summer of 1993 they begin operating IN REVENUE SERVICE - one on the #2 line and the other on the A line." I realize that your definition of revenue service may differ from NYC Transit but since it is the TA that is providing the service and it is the TA that is collecting the revenue, I think that I'll go with their definition....

Thread title: track maps pittsburgh and cleveland rapidtranst (755107)
Started on Wed May 28 00:14:08 1997, by christopher lowenthal

Subject: track maps pittsburgh and cleveland rapidtranst
Message Number: 755107
Posted by: christopher lowenthal
Date: Wed May 28 00:14:08 1997

does anyone have track maps ,,showing tracks,,crossovers and interlockings,,,and platform locations

Thread title: net lengh (755110)
Started on Wed May 28 09:11:59 1997, by Michael

Subject: net lengh
Message Number: 755110
Posted by: Michael
Date: Wed May 28 09:11:59 1997

Is there someone who can tell me how many km / miles of lines and tracks are in service on the NYC-subway today?
- Subject: Re: net lengh
- Message Number: 755113
- Posted by: John
- Date: Wed May 28 16:57:42 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]net lengh posted by Michael on May 28, 1997 at 09:11:59: 722 miles of track in revenue service (rough estimate).

Thread title: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? (755114)
Started on Wed May 28 17:08:56 1997, by Keranu

Subject: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
Message Number: 755114
Posted by: Keranu
Date: Wed May 28 17:08:56 1997

I'm sure many people will not confuse it with the long-gone #8 train. Is this a good idea or is the diamond system already well understood? This could be extended by a different code for #6 expresses. This may be sheer trivia but it would make life easier. ALSO: Is this right? 1/9 skip-stop operates in both directions at rush hours whilst J/Z skip stops only in the peak direction whilst in the opposite direction only the J train runs. This is according to a subway map and a board at Broad Street station.
- Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
- Message Number: 755117
- Posted by: John
- Date: Wed May 28 20:06:38 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Keranu on May 28, 1997 at 17:08:56: You know, I've thought about that same thing. It might be a little easier, especially when given in oral instruction (if someone was saying "Be sure to take the train that has the 7 in the circle rather than in the diamond", they could simply say "take the #7 train". For the number 6 express, a new name might be the number 10? Maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, the information about the 1/9 and the J/Z I beleive is correct.
  - Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
  - Message Number: 755139
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Thu May 29 09:35:08 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Keranu on May 28, 1997 at 17:08:56: I understand your point, but I would stick with the current system because it sort of identifies the #6 & #7 expresses as additional services on those lines. In other words when you see a #6 or #7 in a diamond background, even if you don't know what the diamond means, you will know that this is a train from that particular route (Pelham or Flushing), whereas if the TA assign a different number for expresses this might confuse more people.
    - Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
    - Message Number: 755148
    - Posted by: Peter Rosa
    - Date: Thu May 29 15:47:49 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Wayne Johnson on May 29, 1997 at 09:35:08: Given their locations, I suspect that most of the riders on the express portions of the 6 and the 7 are commuters who use those trains every day, as opposed to tourists or other occasional riders. Rider confusion therefore isn't a major issue and there's no pressing need to use the 8 (or some other designation).
      - Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
      - Message Number: 755161
      - Posted by: Quigebo
      - Date: Thu May 29 19:21:32 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Peter Rosa on May 29, 1997 at 15:47:49: I have to diasgree with you on that. Even commuters who live along the 6 or 7 get confused, sometimes due to incorrect signage. Passengers who need to transfer to the E/F/G/R at 74th Street have to make sure they're not on a 7 express, because it doesn't stop at 74th. Using 8 for the express would clear up that problem. A similar case can be made for using 10 for the 6 express. Sometimes the crew forgets to turn the circle 6 to the diamond 6. And with the R142s going into service on the 7 (possibly the 6, also) you may not know at first glance if the train is express or local, because of the digital side destination signs.
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755163
        Posted by: Zack
        Date: Thu May 29 20:32:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Quigebo on May 29, 1997 at 19:21:32: how about assinging it diffrent platforms OR adding a "X" desingation to the end of it
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755173
        Posted by: John
        Date: Thu May 29 23:04:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Zack on May 29, 1997 at 20:32:12: That 'X' might be a good idea - the 6X, 7X. Not bad. Express busses are designated by an X. Maybe that system should be expanded to the subway.
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755294
        Posted by: Daniel Casner
        Date: Tue Jun 3 13:16:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by John on May 28, 1997 at 20:06:38:
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755295
        Posted by: Andrew Hasson
        Date: Tue Jun 3 13:17:18 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by John on May 28, 1997 at 20:06:38:
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755308
        Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
        Date: Tue Jun 3 17:14:04 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by Daniel Casner on June 03, 1997 at 13:16:17: Where and when did the #8 run? Why did they drop the route?
        
        Subject: Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion?
        Message Number: 755316
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Tue Jun 3 19:36:12 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Why not call #7 Express, #8 to avoid confusion? posted by FRED WELLMAN on June 03, 1997 at 17:14:04: The original #8 was the Astoria line. This was while the Flushing and Astoria Lines were ran in joint BMT/IRT service. That ended in 1949 with the BMT Division taking Astoria and the IRT taking Flushing. When TA equipment took over the 3rd Av El (the Bronx portion) sometime in the Sixties, it was designated as the #8. Then the El was demolished in 1973, eliminating the #8. When skip-stop service was instituted on the #1, the other service was (for some reason I don't know) designated the #9. Why was it designated the #9, instead of the #8?

Thread title: R-30 --- Last Call (755115)
Started on Wed May 28 17:09:35 1997, by John

Subject: R-30 --- Last Call
Message Number: 755115
Posted by: John
Date: Wed May 28 17:09:35 1997

What were the lines to use the R-30 cars right before their retirement (late 1992, early 1993)? Also, what line did the last revenue R-30 travel on?
- Subject: Re: R-30 --- Last Call
- Message Number: 755116
- Posted by: David Pirmann
- Date: Wed May 28 17:33:36 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]R-30 --- Last Call posted by John on May 28, 1997 at 17:09:35: I have a number of photos showing the R-30's on the C line right before their retirement. Back then the C was still going out to Rockaway Park. --Dave
  - Subject: Re: R-30 --- Last Call
  - Message Number: 755137
  - Posted by: Dave
  - Date: Thu May 29 09:02:49 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: R-30 --- Last Call posted by David Pirmann on May 28, 1997 at 17:33:36: In April of 1990, there were 112 R-30s assigned to the C line, 8 assigned to the L and 8 assigned to the M.

Thread title: Re: SORRY about 4 messages above! (755118)
Started on Wed May 28 20:09:17 1997, by John

Subject: Re: SORRY about 4 messages above!
Message Number: 755118
Posted by: John
Date: Wed May 28 20:09:17 1997

In Reply to: [5]SORRY about 4 messages above! posted by Embarrassed Keranu on May 28, 1997 at 17:12:18: No big deal. We all forgive you. Try not to get too carried away on a subject that has nothing to do with this board, though.
- Subject: Re: SORRY about 4 messages above!
- Message Number: 755149
- Posted by: Justin
- Date: Thu May 29 16:16:00 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Re: SORRY about 4 messages above! posted by John on May 28, 1997 at 20:09:17: I attended a presentation in NYC about the new R110 cars. The MTA representative said that the new cars have different color LEDs for different routes... except the #7. It seems that purple (magenta?) LEDs are hard to find.
  - Subject: Re: SORRY about 4 messages above!
  - Message Number: 755154
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Thu May 29 16:44:52 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: SORRY about 4 messages above! posted by Justin on May 29, 1997 at 16:16:00: Do you think the Transit Authority would be able to get away with using red for the #7 sign? Purple and red are pretty close to each other and people who are color-blind or who don't study the signs on the trains probably won't notice.
    - Subject: Re: SORRY about 4 messages above!
    - Message Number: 755157
    - Posted by: Quigebo
    - Date: Thu May 29 18:16:28 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: SORRY about 4 messages above! posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 16:44:52: It's possible that the TA could use red on the #7. After all, we refer to our subway lines by their letters or numbers, not their colors. We call it "the #7 line", not "the purple line". The question is would the TA want to use red? That's most likely not going to happen, because the new R142 cars are going to use roller curtain signs on the front to display the 7, 2, 5, or whatever other line they're going to be used on.

Thread title: Main Line Trackage (755119)
Started on Wed May 28 21:12:42 1997, by Steve

Subject: Main Line Trackage
Message Number: 755119
Posted by: Steve
Date: Wed May 28 21:12:42 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: net lengh posted by John on May 28, 1997 at 16:57:42: Track mileage is figured two ways, route miles and track miles. Here are the official numbers: Underground = 137 route miles or 443 track miles Elevated = 70 route miles or 156 track miles at Grade/open cut = 23 route miles or 57 track miles Total mileage = 230 route miles or 656 track miles Also 186 miles of Yard tracks.
- Subject: Re: Main Line Trackage
- Message Number: 755131
- Posted by: michael
- Date: Thu May 29 06:03:13 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Main Line Trackage posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 21:12:42: Thank You !
  - Subject: Re: Main Line Trackage
  - Message Number: 755188
  - Posted by: John
  - Date: Fri May 30 16:48:30 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Main Line Trackage posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 21:12:42: What's the difference between route mileage and track mileage?
    - Subject: Re: Main Line Trackage
    - Message Number: 755189
    - Posted by: Steve
    - Date: Fri May 30 20:01:41 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: Main Line Trackage posted by John on May 30, 1997 at 16:48:30: The difference between route miles and track miles is very simple to understand. Lets say for example that the #7 line is 26 miles long from Main Street to Times Square. (I'm sure that is not correct but it's just an example) That would be the route mileage. Approximately 8 miles of that is double track and the remaining 18 miles has 3 tracks. Therefore, the track miles are (2 x 8 miles) + (3 x 18 miles) = 60 miles which would be the track miles

Thread title: Baltimore to New York, New York (755121)
Started on Wed May 28 21:41:41 1997, by susan

Subject: Baltimore to New York, New York
Message Number: 755121
Posted by: susan
Date: Wed May 28 21:41:41 1997

I simply want to know the most direct and safest way to get from Baltimore to NY, NY. Or from Providence to NY, NY. I'm a native California who has never been to NY. Coming in July for a trip to Nova Scotia. Thank you.
- Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
- Message Number: 755125
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Wed May 28 23:42:20 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Baltimore to New York, New York posted by susan on May 28, 1997 at 21:41:41: If you are driving get on I-95 northbound. If not SlamTrak or the USAir Shuttle from National.
  - Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
  - Message Number: 755138
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Thu May 29 09:25:05 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Baltimore to New York, New York posted by susan on May 28, 1997 at 21:41:41: From Providence: I-95 South - If you like to speed - beware of Connecticut State troopers. They are really strict.
    - Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
    - Message Number: 755150
    - Posted by: Mark Greenwald
    - Date: Thu May 29 16:23:08 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Baltimore to New York, New York posted by susan on May 28, 1997 at 21:41:41: From Baltimore, the most direct route for driving would still be I-95 northbound via the New Jersey Turnpike-----If, by chance, you are coming into Baltimore from the south, if it is not during rush-hour, take I-895 thru the Harbor Tunnel---if it IS rush-hour, take I-95 thru the Ft. McHenry Tunnel---they both parrallel each other--it's just a matter of timing.
      - Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
      - Message Number: 755153
      - Posted by: John
      - Date: Thu May 29 16:39:11 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Baltimore to New York, New York posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 23:42:20: SlamTrak? That's AMTRAK, Steve!
        
        Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
        Message Number: 755158
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Thu May 29 18:41:35 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Baltimore to New York, New York posted by Steve on May 28, 1997 at 23:42:20: Hey, quit knocking Amtrak! I'd rather relax on Amtrak than get stuck or risk my life on I-95! And who in their right mind wants to spend an arm and a leg for a half-hour shuttle flight that takes forever to take off and lands a well away from midtown. Takes you a million years to get from LGA to midtown with all that traffic.And another thing. More accidents occur by car than by Amtrak, so that SlamTrak remark is unwanted. Maybe you should take Amtrak before you make a judgement about it, instead of listening to what Triple-A, General Motors, and a few members of Congress from the South think.
        
        Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
        Message Number: 755171
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Thu May 29 22:23:29 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: Baltimore to New York, New York posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 16:39:11: Hey guys, lighten up. Every morning, I ride to work with people from AMTRAK. I've ridden in the cab of several locos over the past few years too. AMTRAK personnel have always been both friendly and polite. Having said that, the AMTRAK personnel often refer to the organization as SLAMTRAK. The LIRR personnel have their pet names for their lines too. It is all said in humor (usually).
        
        Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
        Message Number: 755243
        Posted by: oskari lampisjärvi
        Date: Mon Jun 2 08:12:44 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Baltimore to New York, New York posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 16:39:11: fuck you
        
        Subject: Re: Baltimore to New York, New York
        Message Number: 755262
        Posted by: John
        Date: Mon Jun 2 17:23:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: Baltimore to New York, New York posted by oskari lampisj�rvi on June 02, 1997 at 08:12:44: Well, what kind of response would you expect from somebody who doesn't even capitalize the first letters of his (or hers) name?

Thread title: standerd gage (755130)
Started on Thu May 29 02:32:50 1997, by Smart Zack

Subject: standerd gage
Message Number: 755130
Posted by: Smart Zack
Date: Thu May 29 02:32:50 1997

how come the ta dosent standerd gauge the whole system so any car can run on any line?
- Subject: Re: standerd gage
- Message Number: 755136
- Posted by: David Steckler
- Date: Thu May 29 08:58:29 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]standerd gage posted by Smart Zack on May 29, 1997 at 02:32:50: The term "standard guage" refers to the distance between the track rails, e.g., standard guage in the United States is 4 feet, eight and one-half inches. I think you are asking why certain equipment used on the BMT lines doesn't operate on the IRT lines. The major difference lies in the length and width of the cars. The IRT was the first subway system constructed in NY and the curves are sharper and the tunnels narrower. A 75 foot car will have difficulty traversing tunnels and curves built for 60 foot cars.
  - Subject: Re: standerd gage
  - Message Number: 755145
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Thu May 29 14:02:41 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]standerd gage posted by Smart Zack on May 29, 1997 at 02:32:50: The last time I looked, the TA was standard gauge (4' 8 1/2"). It's just that the IRT cars are shorter and narrower so B division cars would not have sufficient clearance in tunnels, on curves and in stations. As to your question why (I assume that you mean standardize the car size), I'll answer you with one word; $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Thread title: 9th Avenue Cut Trackage (755133)
Started on Thu May 29 07:50:44 1997, by Ben-Zion Cassouto

Subject: 9th Avenue Cut Trackage
Message Number: 755133
Posted by: Ben-Zion Cassouto
Date: Thu May 29 07:50:44 1997

I hope I can get some serious feedback on this historical track issue... This will come as a surprise to many (those who care anyway): According to early Presbrey photos and commentary, and other hints I picked up here and there - it would seem that contrary to popular belief, even as seen in ERA track maps - ** The 5th Ave El was reached by the same easterly pair of ramps as the yard tracks use! People always show that the westerly abandoned ramps were used for this -- it is natural, no? NO. In a 1917 photo after the cut was fully built to its present configuration, those ramps had NO TRACK! Comments?
- Subject: Re: 9th Avenue Cut Trackage
- Message Number: 755142
- Posted by: Mark S Feinman
- Date: Thu May 29 12:20:57 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]9th Avenue Cut Trackage posted by Ben-Zion Cassouto on May 29, 1997 at 07:50:44: I was just reading the 1975 Sept - Oct (I think if memory serves me right) issue of Headlights - the one that describes Brooklyn elevated lines in detail. I think the 5th Ave EL was mentioned in the article, so I'll check it out again for you and report back on what it says. --Mark
  - Subject: Re: 9th Avenue Cut Trackage
  - Message Number: 755182
  - Posted by: Mark S Feinman
  - Date: Fri May 30 13:43:39 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: 9th Avenue Cut Trackage posted by Mark S Feinman on May 29, 1997 at 12:20:57: I checked the article again last night and it did not make specific mention of which ramp was used to get to the 5th Ave EL - just the fact that a ramp was used. --Mark

Thread title: R-44 Side Signs on SIRT (755134)
Started on Thu May 29 08:08:32 1997, by Dan

Subject: R-44 Side Signs on SIRT
Message Number: 755134
Posted by: Dan
Date: Thu May 29 08:08:32 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Colour Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Charles Fiori on May 27, 1997 at 10:45:46: The side signs on the SIR's fleet of of R-44s were removed during the cars refurbishment in the early 1990's. The car-end roller signs indicate the destination. Since all the trains run between St. George and Tottenville (or Great Kills), the side signs were deemed superfluous.

Thread title: Re: NYC Subway train lengths (SIR) (755135)
Started on Thu May 29 08:17:26 1997, by Dan

Subject: Re: NYC Subway train lengths (SIR)
Message Number: 755135
Posted by: Dan
Date: Thu May 29 08:17:26 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: NYC Subway train lengths posted by Steve on May 26, 1997 at 11:36:34: The Staten Island Railway uses 4-car (R-44) trains. During rush hours all 4 cars are open. In off-hours 2 cars and sometimes only 1 car is open. For a while the SIR was running 2-car trains on weekends, but I think they have stopped that practice for now. The 2-car trains appeared to struggle up the south bound incline between New Dorp and Oakwood,

Thread title: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) (755140)
Started on Thu May 29 10:26:51 1997, by Charles

Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
Message Number: 755140
Posted by: Charles
Date: Thu May 29 10:26:51 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to MJS) posted by Andrew Huie on May 28, 1997 at 23:06:34: I cannot answer this question. I do know that due to the position of the doors on this train they will not allign with the gap fillers at 14th Street or South Ferry Loop station
- Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
- Message Number: 755156
- Posted by: John
- Date: Thu May 29 16:49:38 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) posted by Charles on May 29, 1997 at 10:26:51: 14th Street has gap fillers? I never noticed them before.
  - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
  - Message Number: 755170
  - Posted by: Steve
  - Date: Thu May 29 22:14:33 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) posted by Charles on May 29, 1997 at 10:26:51: That was exactly the answer.
    - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
    - Message Number: 755184
    - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
    - Date: Fri May 30 15:15:16 1997
      
      In Reply to: [5]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 16:49:38: Yes, it does. That's Union Square (14th Street) on the Lexington Avenue line, not the 7 Avenue line's 14th Street station.
      - Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
      - Message Number: 755264
      - Posted by: John
      - Date: Mon Jun 2 17:30:20 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) posted by Wayne Johnson on May 30, 1997 at 15:15:16: What other stations beside 14th Street, South Ferry, and Times Square shuttle platform have gap fillers? Also, can the A and B divisions be integrated if the platforms of IRT stations were cut back (or IRT trains ran on the B division lines) and gap fillers were used?
        
        Subject: Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew)
        Message Number: 755269
        Posted by: Quigebo
        Date: Mon Jun 2 19:22:36 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: R110A&B Test Trains(to andrew) posted by John on June 02, 1997 at 17:30:20: You know, I've thought about that, too. Even if the platforms were cut back, the larger BMT/IND trains wouldn't be able to fit in the smaller IRT tunnels. You could install gap fillers at BMT/IND stations (which was actually done on the #6 line in the Bronx, in the hope of tying it into the 2nd Av Subway, but then they put in gap fillers for the smaller IRT trains - I've heard this from somebody on this sight) for IRT-size trains, but why? It would severely restrict capacity on trains running on the former BMT or IND lines. This would be espeially true on the Queens Blvd Lines, which are already strained beyond capacity. Narrower trains would only make the overcrowding much worse.

Thread title: TTC Track guage (sp?) (755141)
Started on Thu May 29 11:24:06 1997, by Nathan

Subject: TTC Track guage (sp?)
Message Number: 755141
Posted by: Nathan
Date: Thu May 29 11:24:06 1997

Does anyone know the Toronto transit commision's subway and LRV track guage? I know that it is wider than standard, but I am not sre by how much. Thanx
- Subject: Re: TTC Track guage (sp?)
- Message Number: 755151
- Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
- Date: Thu May 29 16:30:03 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]TTC Track guage (sp?) posted by Nathan on May 29, 1997 at 11:24:06: Streetcar track is four feet ten and three quarter inches, I believe! Some lines were originally standard but when TTC was formed it standardized on non-standard. The gauge is unique to Toronto. I am not sure on the subway system.
  - Subject: Re: TTC Track guage (sp?)
  - Message Number: 755191
  - Posted by: Dan Lawrence
  - Date: Fri May 30 20:22:00 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: TTC Track guage (sp?) posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 29, 1997 at 16:30:03: The Toronto track guage of 4'10 7/8" predates the TTC. The story I heard was that in the 1880's the Toronto Street Railway (horsecars) came ubder the control of the McKenzie-Mann interests that also controlled the Canadian Northern Railraod. Alarmed at the possibility of steam trains running down Queen Street, the Toronto city council ordered the TSR to convert to any other guage but standard. The TSR, unable to re-equip the entire fleet simply pulled the wheels out to the limit practcal without re-mounting the pedistals. Presto!! 4'10 7/8". The guage remained the same with electrification, the Toronto Railway Company (The elecric operator) used many of the TSR horsecars as trailers. When the TTC was created, the guage was set. The Yonge Street Subway (Toronto's (and Canada's) first subway) was built using streetcar work equipment, so the streetcar guage became the subway guage. There is a metric equivilent, but I don't know it. Maybe one of our Canadian friends can enlighten us.
    - Subject: Re: TTC Track guage (sp?)
    - Message Number: 755207
    - Posted by: Brian
    - Date: Sun Jun 1 02:49:28 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: TTC Track guage (sp?) posted by Dan Lawrence on May 30, 1997 at 20:22:00: Canadian friends, eh? Being a resident of Toronto my entire life, I am quite familiar with the TTC, and the track guage is 1.5 metres exactly. I sometimes post some questions of my own, so maybe some of you can help me out as well.

Thread title: standard cars (755147)
Started on Thu May 29 15:21:57 1997, by Zack The Genious

Subject: standard cars
Message Number: 755147
Posted by: Zack The Genious
Date: Thu May 29 15:21:57 1997

how come the ta doesent make standerd 60 ft cars on the sys tem to further intergarte the lines P.S is nt the bmt wider then the irt/ind?
- Subject: Re: standard cars
- Message Number: 755152
- Posted by: John
- Date: Thu May 29 16:34:43 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]standard cars posted by Zack The Genious on May 29, 1997 at 15:21:57: The length of the cars does not affect integration matters, however, you are half right about the width. You just got a little mixed up - the IRT trains are narrower than the BMT/IND trains.
  - Subject: Re: standard cars
  - Message Number: 755155
  - Posted by: Gerry O'Regan
  - Date: Thu May 29 16:46:55 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]standard cars posted by Zack The Genious on May 29, 1997 at 15:21:57: Sixty feet was the standard IND car length. The IRT was ans still is 50 feet. The BMT had no standard car length as such since they had the D types and Multis which were longer than the so-called standards which were 67 feet. Add to this various forms of rebuilt el cars eg: C and Q types and you have a mess. The BMT also operated 8' 6" and 10' wide cars on the same routes, even on Myrtle Av into the 1960s. The C types and Multis were 10' wide el cars. All subway cars were 10' wide. The R-16 through R-42 series were primarily built to replace BMT equipment and standardize the length at 60'. No sooner than that had been completed, the R-44 and R-46 series were ordered to replace the original IND cars with 75' cars, followed by the R-68 series to replace the R-10 to 30s. Either way, the only way to standardize the whole system would be to go to 50' cars at nine feet wide. Then the whole system would be standardized on IRT size equipment, all of the B division would be less efficient. Enough on that - Here in Boston we have three different lines with three different sizes of car!
    - Subject: Re: standard cars
    - Message Number: 755159
    - Posted by: Quigebo
    - Date: Thu May 29 18:55:35 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: standard cars posted by Gerry O'Regan on May 29, 1997 at 16:46:55: The TA is going to standardize the length of the BMT/IND cars at the dimensions of the BMT Standards cars - 67 feet long, 10 feet wide. This began with the R110B and will continue with the forthcoming R143s. Unfortunately, due to the shortsightedness of the subway planners in the late 1800s, we'll always have at least two sizes of subway cars that can't run in the same tunnels or use the same platforms in regular passenger service.
      - Subject: Re: standard cars
      - Message Number: 755177
      - Posted by: Speller
      - Date: Fri May 30 08:26:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]standard cars posted by Zack The Genious on May 29, 1997 at 15:21:57: Learn how to spell!
        
        Subject: Re: standard cars
        Message Number: 755205
        Posted by: nathan
        Date: Sun Jun 1 02:10:39 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: standard cars posted by Speller on May 30, 1997 at 08:26:48: let's bash slamtrak, not other people!
        
        Subject: Re: standard cars
        Message Number: 755213
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Sun Jun 1 09:46:24 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: standard cars posted by nathan on June 01, 1997 at 02:10:39: Okay, - I heard from a maintenance foreman @ amtrak that derailments are becoming so common that they are considering stenciling "THIS SIDE UP" on the roof of their cars and locos.
        
        Subject: Re: standard cars
        Message Number: 755321
        Posted by: Andrew Huie
        Date: Tue Jun 3 22:16:41 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: standard cars posted by Quigebo on May 29, 1997 at 18:55:35: Actually, I also heard that a major reason was that August Belmont did not want the new subway line to carry freight, as was suggested by some investors. Is this true?

Thread title: ENTER THE CHICAGO RAIL FAN QUIZ BELOW PRIZES WILL BE AWARDED (755160)
Started on Thu May 29 19:20:48 1997, by Brian Jakosz

Subject: ENTER THE CHICAGO RAIL FAN QUIZ BELOW PRIZES WILL BE AWARDED
Message Number: 755160
Posted by: Brian Jakosz
Date: Thu May 29 19:20:48 1997

ENTER THE CHICAGO RAIL FAN QUIZ BELOW PRIZES WILL BE AWARDED YOU MUST ENTER BY MAY 31ST HURRY!!!!!!!!

Thread title: PLEASE SEE THIS APOLOGY IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY MY ANTI-BRITIAN POST (755164)
Started on Thu May 29 21:35:44 1997, by M.J.S.

Subject: PLEASE SEE THIS APOLOGY IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY MY ANTI-BRITIAN POST
Message Number: 755164
Posted by: M.J.S.
Date: Thu May 29 21:35:44 1997

In Reply to: [6]Re: End of Color Coding? (NYC Subway R110As) posted by Keranu on May 27, 1997 at 11:13:10: I only meant that as a joke, it's not like you posted in a totally different language. I just like justifying the publication of an English-English Dictionary:-), I'm sorry, I'll have to stop doing that.
- Subject: Re: PLEASE SEE THIS APOLOGY IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY MY ANTI-BRITIAN POST
- Message Number: 755216
- Posted by: Keranu
- Date: Sun Jun 1 12:37:24 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]PLEASE SEE THIS APOLOGY IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY MY ANTI-BRITIAN POST posted by M.J.S. on May 29, 1997 at 21:35:44: Keranu here, I took it as a joke, no harm done. Aafter visiting New York (and in fact the US) for the first time in April, I now think Britain sucks. Some guy on my bus once mistook me for an American when I am in fact completely Glaswegian. No need to make an apology though. Do many British people see this web site? You have even made me feel better by spelling Britain wrong HA HA HA. Must come back to America and pick up more vocabulary.

Thread title: Old Penn Station (NYC) (755168)
Started on Thu May 29 22:09:41 1997, by James

Subject: Old Penn Station (NYC)
Message Number: 755168
Posted by: James
Date: Thu May 29 22:09:41 1997

I'm dying to find a poster of the old Penn Station in New York. The image I have in mind (and seen in books) shows the long-demolished wonder in its full glory without pedestrians. Thanks.
- Subject: Re: Old Penn Station (NYC)
- Message Number: 755172
- Posted by: James
- Date: Thu May 29 22:33:23 1997
  
  In Reply to: [6]Old Penn Station (NYC) posted by James on May 29, 1997 at 22:09:41: Better e-mail address.

Thread title: The C Train (755174)
Started on Thu May 29 23:10:24 1997, by John

Subject: The C Train
Message Number: 755174
Posted by: John
Date: Thu May 29 23:10:24 1997

Why does the C train run with only four cars on the weekend?
- Subject: Re: The C Train
- Message Number: 755176
- Posted by: Nathan_McCartney
- Date: Fri May 30 00:35:28 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]The C Train posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 23:10:24: C-Train? As in Calgary Transit? Hmmmm, I dunno, maybe demand is lower on weekends, and it depends what the service frequency is, some systems run four car trains every 2 minutes, or 6 cars every 5 minutes, It depends, try to be more specific!
  - Subject: Re: The C Train
  - Message Number: 755178
  - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
  - Date: Fri May 30 10:27:20 1997
    
    In Reply to: [6]The C Train posted by John on May 29, 1997 at 23:10:24: My guess is lower demand. On weekends C service operates between 168th Street and World Trade Center in Manhattan. This weekend C service is an exact duplicate of the old AA service (which was eliminated in the '80's). The AA operated with 4 car trains.
    - Subject: Re: The C Train
    - Message Number: 755179
    - Posted by: Peter Rosa
    - Date: Fri May 30 11:08:29 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]Re: The C Train posted by Wayne Johnson on May 30, 1997 at 10:27:20: Many of the stations served by the C train on its weekend routing are served by other trains as well. It's not an "exclusive" train like the L or the 7. For the most part, only the stations along Central Park West have C-only service on weekends.
      - Subject: Re: The C Train
      - Message Number: 755180
      - Posted by: Wayne Johnson
      - Date: Fri May 30 11:55:27 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train posted by Peter Rosa on May 30, 1997 at 11:08:29: OK, Yes many of the stations are served by other trains, but my point was that this service during off peak hours (8 Avenue local between 168th & WTC) has long been served by four car trains. The AA and later the K, and even late night A trains would occasionally run with 4 cars. This is with R-44 now and with R-40's in the past. I am aware that weekday C trains use 8 cars. Four car trains (60 footers) seem to be rare on IND lines, but they were once more common.
        
        Subject: Re: The C Train
        Message Number: 755186
        Posted by: John
        Date: Fri May 30 16:41:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train posted by Wayne Johnson on May 30, 1997 at 11:55:27: You know, now that you mention it, I think I do remember the K and AA trains having four cars (or at least being shorter than the other trains). It's just that I never really noticed it until now.
        
        Subject: Re: The C Train
        Message Number: 755187
        Posted by: Brian jakosz
        Date: Fri May 30 16:45:48 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: The C Train posted by Wayne Johnson on May 30, 1997 at 10:27:20: You should be happy that the C Train uses four cars on the week-end. Here in Chicago The Blue Line only operates 2 cars on the Week-end, but does opeerate 8 (The CTA"S CURRENT MAX).
        
        Subject: Re: The C Train
        Message Number: 755275
        Posted by: Lou
        Date: Mon Jun 2 21:16:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train posted by Peter Rosa on May 30, 1997 at 11:08:29: This is becoming a habbit on the MTA Staten Island Railway (SIRT). Two car (R44's?) on weekends 30 minute headway BUT only one car open even with standing room only they will not open the other car. I understand cutting down road miles on the fleet but maybe the C train and SIRT are under some new MTA master plan?? Right.

Thread title: Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message) (755181)
Started on Fri May 30 13:31:44 1997, by nathan

Subject: Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message)
Message Number: 755181
Posted by: nathan
Date: Fri May 30 13:31:44 1997

In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train posted by Nathan_McCartney on May 30, 1997 at 00:35:28: ooops. wrong c train. be more specific please!
- Subject: Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message)
- Message Number: 755183
- Posted by: Wayne Johnson
- Date: Fri May 30 15:11:06 1997
  
  In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message) posted by nathan on May 30, 1997 at 13:31:44: Nathan, Since this is The New York Subway Resources page - I don't think it's necessary to be more specific unless we're discussing a train/bus that's not part of NYCT.
  - Subject: Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message)
  - Message Number: 755185
  - Posted by: Nathan
  - Date: Fri May 30 16:04:42 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]Re: The C Train(Don't bother reading the above message) posted by Wayne Johnson on May 30, 1997 at 15:11:06: Yeah, sorry, my mistake. (Oh, to not confuse anyone, when I said "Don't bother reading the above message" that was referring to MY above message, not the original one!!!)

Thread title: The 'C' train & TA Bashing (755190)
Started on Fri May 30 20:21:37 1997, by Steve

Subject: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
Message Number: 755190
Posted by: Steve
Date: Fri May 30 20:21:37 1997

The question below about the C train being cut to 4 cars during non-commission hours is very simple and then again not so simple to answer. I will give you the answer but want to preface my answer with a few personal observations. Many of the remarks posted here-in make unkind references to the TA management (while AMTRAK criticism meets much resistance) and that's fine. We are all here for our mutual enjoyment and exchanging facts and knowledge. However, with all the criticism of that TA management, one fact is never mentioned. 88% of every TA ride is paid for out of the fare box. That is more than double the national average. That one fact alone makes them pretty damn efficient, don't you think? Then again consider LA. The LA subway system is costing more than $300,000,000 per mile. That works out to about $57,000.00 per foot of tunnel. I believe that is 50 times what the TA does it for. Now for the 'C' line. It works out that it costs $1.10 per mile to operate one average subway car. Approximately 1/2 of that goes to Con Edison. If you cut 4 cars off of 12 trains, on one round trip of 50 miles you save 4 x 12 x 50 x $1.10 = $2640 saved. I don't know exactly how many C train trips run each weekend but you get the idea.
- Subject: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
- Message Number: 755192
- Posted by: Steve
- Date: Fri May 30 20:22:56 1997
  
  The question below about the C train being cut to 4 cars during non-commission hours is very simple and then again not so simple to answer. I will give you the answer but want to preface my answer with a few personal observations. Many of the remarks posted here-in make unkind references to the TA management (while AMTRAK criticism meets much resistance) and that's fine. We are all here for our mutual enjoyment and exchanging facts and knowledge. However, with all the criticism of that TA management, one fact is never mentioned. 88% of every TA ride is paid for out of the fare box. That is more than double the national average. That one fact alone makes them pretty damn efficient, don't you think? Then again consider LA. The LA subway system is costing more than $300,000,000 per mile. That works out to about $57,000.00 per foot of tunnel. I believe that is 50 times what the TA does it for. Now for the 'C' line. It works out that it costs $1.10 per mile to operate one average subway car. Approximately 1/2 of that goes to Con Edison. If you cut 4 cars off of 12 trains, on one round trip of 50 miles you save 4 x 12 x 50 x $1.10 = $2640 saved. I don't know exactly how many C train trips run each weekend but you get the idea. Comments?
  - Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
  - Message Number: 755200
  - Posted by: Nathan
  - Date: Sat May 31 16:08:41 1997
    
    In Reply to: [5]The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Steve on May 30, 1997 at 20:22:56: Totally agree with you, when you say 88%, are you talking cost recovery? That's damn good, finally, I think the LA subway is giving a very BAD name to rapid transit.
    - Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
    - Message Number: 755236
    - Posted by: Peter Rosa
    - Date: Sun Jun 1 23:52:08 1997
      
      In Reply to: [6]The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Steve on May 30, 1997 at 20:22:56: I appreciate your comments ... but are you certain about the cost figures on subway operation? From what I've heard, by far the largest single operating (as opposed to capital) cost for the NT subway by far is labor. In this respect, of course, the subway is no different from most business activities of any type. At any rate, if labor does indeed account for the lion's share of subway operating expenses, shortening train consists won't save much money except with the limited exception of OPTO. A four-car C train has the same two person crew as one with eight cars. In fact, the effort required to shorten and lengthen consists probably itself requires quite a bit of labor. I'm not saying that the four-car C trains aren't cheaper to run than the regular ones. Besides electricity, the reduced wear and tear on the cars has to be considered. In the grand scheme of things, however, I just don't see the big savings in the current practice.
      - Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
      - Message Number: 755239
      - Posted by: Steve
      - Date: Mon Jun 2 00:09:57 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Peter Rosa on June 01, 1997 at 23:52:08: I believe that the numbers were published in this months' Progressive Railroading or one of the other trade publications. Actually, I did mis-state one fact slightly. The cost of electricity per car per mile is 45 cents, however, the total savings per mile is $1.10 as I stated. Actually, the single largest expense, aside from labor, the TA incurs is electricity which is somewhere between 5 & 6 million dollars per month. Of course labor is the largest expense but the savings I refer to are the savings acrewed by reduced maintenance because of decreased mileage. That includes labor and material reductions.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755240
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon Jun 2 00:10:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Peter Rosa on June 01, 1997 at 23:52:08: I believe that the numbers were published in this months' Progressive Railroading or one of the other trade publications. Actually, I did mis-state one fact slightly. The cost of electricity per car per mile is 45 cents, however, the total savings per mile is $1.10 as I stated. Actually, the single largest expense, aside from labor, the TA incurs is electricity which is somewhere between 5 & 6 million dollars per month. Of course labor is the largest expense but the savings I refer to are the savings realized by reduced maintenance because of decreased mileage. That includes labor and material reductions.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755274
        Posted by: Lou
        Date: Mon Jun 2 21:13:17 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Steve on May 30, 1997 at 20:22:56: And I pay the same amount for "off-peak" as rush hour. Waiting 10 minutes for a Q at $1.50 is fine but 30 minutes for a D for the same trip at $1.50 gets me mad. Add OPTO too all at the same price and the non cleaning of cars during the weekend?? OPTO = One Person Train Operation
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755279
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Mon Jun 2 22:35:52 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Lou on June 02, 1997 at 21:13:17: If the Urban Mass Transit Act Section 13(c) prohibits productivity gains through technological advances (that result in job loss), how do you achieve meaningful savings except by using plans such as OPTO. As for waiting for 30 minutes for a 'D' train, the greatest headway on that line is 20 minutes (even at midnight or later). If you waited 30 minutes for a train it was for reasons other than scheduling. As for the filth on the trains (and I ride them daily) I know very few Transit employees who dump their garbage on the trains. However, I have gotten onto a very clean train at Stillwell Ave., on its' first trip out of the yard and by the time I get off at Bedford Park, the train is filthy. Sure the number of cleaners has been reduced but we are not talking about unmopped floors on the trains. We are talking about people litttering the trains in epidemic proportions.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755293
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Tue Jun 3 10:18:29 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Steve on June 02, 1997 at 22:35:52: Steve, I agree with you 100% about the littering. Many people are complaining, but it's the passengers (not the TA) that's littering in the subway. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a parent give a child something to eat and the wrapper or uneaten portion ends up on the floor. Many adults also are eating, drinking and leaving the garbage in the trains or throwing it on the tracks. We all know the TA is not perfect, but the straphangers have to realize that they must do their part in keeping the system free of garbage, which would also cut down on track fires.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755310
        Posted by: FRED WELLMAN
        Date: Tue Jun 3 17:16:46 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Wayne Johnson on June 03, 1997 at 10:18:29: From what I read NYC has reduced crime by cranking down on petty crimes, why don't they do the same thing on the subway. Advertise B4 hand and enforce litter laws.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755325
        Posted by: Lou
        Date: Tue Jun 3 22:47:09 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Steve on June 02, 1997 at 22:35:52: Yes published headway is 20minutes on the D. I constantly transfer from the E to the D late at night (2 to 4am) "just" missing the southbound D (I see the full train just leaving the platform or the markers). It is starting to become a habbit of more than a 25 minute wait. I never litter, and agree with you the amount of "customers" littering is way up. But the actual difference in the appearance of the train as I enter is striking compared to weekday service. I feel that I should not have to pay the same for off peak service then during rush hour.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755328
        Posted by: M.J.S.
        Date: Tue Jun 3 22:57:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [6]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by FRED WELLMAN on June 03, 1997 at 17:16:46: They do crack down on petty crimes in the subway, like turnstile jumping, but most litterbugs are not violent criminals, like turnstile jumpers might be.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755337
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue Jun 3 23:49:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Lou on June 03, 1997 at 22:47:09: With the MetroCard, such discounts may be possible in the future.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755338
        Posted by: Steve
        Date: Tue Jun 3 23:54:16 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by M.J.S. on June 03, 1997 at 22:57:21: It's not too popular to arrest or summons a mother who changes her baby's diaper on the train and then slips the dirty one under the seat - but it stinks just as much. If every person littering a train received a ticket, what court would process the paperwork and adjudicate the fines?
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755355
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Wed Jun 4 15:58:02 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Wayne Johnson on June 03, 1997 at 10:18:29: If so, (regarding the litter) has the TA considered fines, or maybe "outlawing" food, which would suck for the rest of us but it would keep the system cleaner...
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755359
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Wed Jun 4 17:51:56 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Nathan on June 04, 1997 at 15:58:02: Well - It seems at this point that the Transit Police dosen't ticket passengers with food/(non-alcoholic) drinks. I guess they will ticket people for littering, but I'm sure most people will not litter in their presence that same as when they sneak a quick smoke, which happens quite often.
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755374
        Posted by: Nathan
        Date: Thu Jun 5 02:00:08 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Wayne Johnson on June 04, 1997 at 17:51:56: Hmmm, the TA should strongly discourage smoking on trains, that would suck if something caught fire... I'd hate to see what goes on on the trains late at night with kids and all the trains are probably a hot-house of illegal activities ("and to your left is a hot-boxed R-32...")
        
        Subject: Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing
        Message Number: 755376
        Posted by: Wayne Johnson
        Date: Thu Jun 5 09:27:21 1997
        
        In Reply to: [5]Re: The 'C' train & TA Bashing posted by Nathan on June 05, 1997 at 02:00:08: The TA does discourage smoking with many signs that prohibit it. I'm pretty sure that it is common knowledge that smoking is not permitted on the transit system (including buses), but it's a case of the violators know that the transit police can't be everywhere at once.

https://www.nycsubway.org/articles/talks/subtalk-199705.html
This site is not affiliated with any transit agency or provider.