Hi all,
I've converted the SubTalk bulletin board to WebBBS 2.25 software. This has a lot of new features that I thought it was worth it to convert.
We made the switch from the old WWWBoard system for a number of reasons. WebBBS provides a number of administration features that will make my life easier and at the same time provide a ton of useful new features to you, the faithful surfer.
First and foremost, the display of the message index is completely generated by a CGI script allowing full customization of the display. The script uses web "cookies" to retain your preferences from visit to visit. You can also change between threaded view and chronological view, view old messages, and search the messages from the Search/Personalize Display page.
Archiving of posts is now "automatic" in the sense that by default it will only display posts made in the last week. To view posts that are older, you can visit the Search/Personalize Display page and change your preferences for this session. The Archive posts remain threaded and part of the active WebBBS for followup and searching purposes.
Other new features that will possibly be implemented are E-mail notification of responses and automatic generation of an E-mail "digest" of posts that you can subscribe to. This feature is still under evaluation.
WebBBS also prevents duplicate submission of the same post and has better file locking to prevent accidental overwriting of posts.
The old posts from the old SubTalk system will be available in the NNTP archives at news://nycsubway.org/subtalk for the foreseeable future. It is unlikely they will be folded into the new system.
Enjoy!
-Dave
Congrats Dave,
I'm a LAN Administrator, and I certainly can understand the importance of making your administrative tasks easier. Thanks again for a great site to visit.
Thanks Wayne,
I hope the extra features that are available outweigh the fact that it's almost impossible to parse all the old messages and convert them to WebBBS format. :-)
The old articles will remain available in the Old Subtalk Index for a while... so I hope people will take the time to continue a thread here (or by all means start a new one!)
-Dave
The new board loads nice and fast. Hope this makes your life easier so that we can all continue to schmooze here on line. Nice Job Dave
I guess I'm just a fool for semantics, but I really appreciate your choice in changing the term from Followup to Response. Sometimes I would hesitate to respond, realizing that what I had typed did not qualify as a followup. I soon realized that nobody was limiting their input accordingly, but it feels betterto be in strict compliance, since EVERYTHING is, by definition, a response.
> WebBBS provides a number of administration features that will make my life
> easier
As a programmer and Lotus Notes Administrator, this strikes a responsive chord with me.
As usual, superb job, Dave.
If you need help evaluating those other features that you're considering, lemme know.
--Mark
I think it's nice. At least it's chronological.
Other new features ... automatic generation of an E-mail "digest" of posts that you can subscribe to. This feature is still under evaluation.
What happened to this feature?
AEM7
Why didn't you ask this question in 1998?
-Hank
If memory serves, Dave decided either it was too complicated to have the Subtalk community subscribe to (may have taken too many resources/needed to be babysat) or there was no demand. In as much as only AEM7 brought this up after four years, there's no demand.
BTW - Happy Birthday USA!!!!!!!!!!!
Acela LIRR Express M7 #7046
Pigs has been hitting the quack pipe again!!!
Now he's dreging up posts from five years ago.
Makes us yearn for the days of Heypaul. -:)
Odd thing is is that thats almost about the same time my father moved out here from Chicago, thereby ensuring that the rest of us would follow once school got out. For me thats a striking coincidence, first subtalk post, and the final nail in the coffin of my time in Chicago. If it hadn't been for rr.net shutdown and accidentally stumbling across Subtalk (actually NYCrail.com, subtalk had it's melt down at the same time as rr.net, then NYCsubway.org was for learning about the subway, not talking), I would have remained completely oblivious to the sheer wonder that the NYC subways still brings me. And had I never moved from Chicago to the 'Electric East' I would have remained completely oblivious to the obvious advantages of electrification, still insisting that they weren't true locomotives cause they didn't carry their powerplant around with them. I might have explored Metra by now, certainly with a train station on the CNW-NW line just 1/4 mile from my house it'd be easy, but I don't think that I would have explored the L quite as much as I have the Philly and NYC subways. At the time I considered third rail VERY dangerous, as though I'd be standing on the L platform and the 3rd rail would arc and smite me, now I know better.
Sorry for the ramblings, just suddenly thought to question where from and why my intrest in rapid transit got started. That kind of thing can be kind of interesting when I stop and think about it.
Chuck Greene
Peace,
ANDEE
Thanks,
R-32.
A great site for HTML stuff, I often just copy and paste his examples to the message board, with a few modifications, of course.
BTW, how can I change my registered email address(the one to recover my password)?
Tks.
E-mail responses would be NICE! Thanks for the good work. I'll have another Amazon.com donation for you soon.
Tony Mirabella
Okay, this morning at Boston's South Station I saw what appeared at first to be a normal looking Amtrak coach. As I got closer, I noticed it has what seems to be a control cab on the front. It was very strange looking and seemed out of place -- especially since it had a pantograph and the Amtrak right-of-way to Boston is not electrified. I wasn't aware that Amtrak had any push/pull service, but this car seems to suggest otherwise. Does anybody know where they use this funky looking coach? Are there more? Am I the only one who thinks they are UGLY?
Congradulations!! You've just found a Metroliner!!!
After high speed rail flop #1 (aka Metroliner), they depowered some of the cab cars and used them as control cars. AFIK, they no longer run as power cars, but if anyone knows otherwise PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!! I've love to ride on one, for the heck of it.. The Vermonter uses one, I believe. Did you get numbers / photos?? See if you can match it up in the "Historical Perspectives" section of this site. I'm almost certain it's a Metroliner, though.
Yes, that's where the Amfleet (tm) got it's "squished" look and pathetically small (IMHO) windows from. They were made by Budd, ordered by PRR/Penn Central, and were a disaster. The cab sure has ugly looks. They used a diamond pantagraph, and were MUs on the 11k 25 hz system. They cannot run on Metro-North catenary. I'm curious as to how well the pans worked at high speed, as I understand that the TGV had problems with waves in the trolley line screwing up the contact. That's why TGV's usually only have one pan up.
I was in the San Diego, CA Santa Fe station last week. Amtrak trains to Los Angeles had a metroliner cab car at he south end of the train. The front of the car was painted with yellow stripes for visibility and it looked like it was reinforced with posts, ( There are many grade crossings on the line). The roof had a bunch of flashing lights and horns that were not gracefully integrated with the lines of the car.
Okay, I was on a Metroliner about ten years ago (Philly to NYC) and didn't notice any difference between it and a regular Amtrak train. Or wasn't I looking closely enough? So what WAS the Metroliner, exactly?
Also, what ever happened to the "Turboliners?"
There are two Metroliners. Metroliner, the fleet and Metroliner, the train name. the Metroliner you rode 10 years ago was surely named "Metroliner" but probably didn't use the original Metroliner EMUs. By then the train consisted of an AEM7 Loco and Amfleet coaches. As mentioned above Amfleet was designed after the Metroliner EMUs.
a few weeks ago i saw a amfleet coach with a pan and control station. this was not a old metroliner cab car!! this was in nj on the bergen county line. the unit was being towed by njt gp-40p with a comet 2 coach. thought i was crazy!!
That's new to me. Although it's rare that I go past Hoboken so it may have been around for a while. Did it have Amtrak livery or NJT livery on it? How its cab end differed from the Metorliners?
it had flat ended cab with windows. (wipers horn) and a pan it down position. it looked like a standard amfleet coach. could determaine if it motors or the pan was just for testing only. did not get number of the car
metroliner's (the old style emu's)did run to new haven but i think that was before metro-north rebuilt the power system
As did the GG-1 during the PC and Amtrak years (ironic given that the GG-1s wheelbase was based on a NH locomotive).
The GG-1 required 25 hz AC, and the Metroliner might have too. Metro North's M-2's can run on either 25 or 60 cycle, I'm not sure if the 4s or 6s can. So when the GG-1s and Metroliners were retired, Metro-North rebuilt the power system to 60 cycle - and closed the troublesome Cos Cob power plant. I'm kind of baffeled as to why Amtrak is still 25 cycle, as it's pretty inefficient, and the 60 -> 25 cycle conversion has quite a bit of losses too. Obviously the AEM-7 can run on both, as can the E-60s, and I'm sure most of Septs's and NJT's current equipement can, although any MP-54's or Blueliners in work service require 25 cycle.
Does Septa or NJT have any MP-54's in work service still???
there no mp54s still running in nj(that i know of). njt apl's do swicth voltages on the middletown direct service. mu can run on both lines
The current "Metroliners" are using amfleet cars? I thought so too, but some of the external details are a little different than the regular trains, enough that I thought they were converted EMU Metroliner cars. Or could it just be these were a different batch of amfleet cars built with slightly different specs?
Old Metroliner cab cars with pantographs were used on Clocker service from 30th Street to Harrisburg. The cars got hotel power only from the pantograph and were pulled by electric engines. (From what I remember)
That, I did not know. Thanks. Also, great photos! There aren't very many photos of those sets on the i'net, and you've got two of them.
Some Turboliners have been bought by Ny DOT and are being rebuilt for use on the NYC to Albany Run The prototype is built and running. Contracts have been let to rebuid several more sets.
Just curious, this sounds interesting. Who will operate the Turboliners for NYSDOT?
AMTRAK under contract with NYDOT I think. AMTRAK likes the state contracts for service. Thats the way the Hiawatha is funded now by Wis. and IL between Mill. and Chicago. Maybe someone knows for sure. I saw an article in a magazine a few months ago about the Turboliners.
Thank's Joe, I thought it might be Amtrak, sounds reasonable. Nice to see our Goverment bodies playing nice together.
The real Metroliners weren't in service ten years ago. What you rode was a "Metroliner Service" train consisting of an AEM-7 and Amfleet cars.
The Metroliners looked like the Amfleets, but were the original. EMU cars built by Budd is what they were. They dated back to the end of the PRR. Rather ungainly-looking cab, and supposedly they were capable of about 165 mph or so. As EMUs, they ended service as "Capitoliners" on Amtrak running between NY Penn and Harrisburg. Many of the original Metroliners were converted to cab cars for push-pull operation with locomotive-hauled trains.
Also, what ever happened to the "Turboliners?"
The Rohr Turboliners? Super Steel rebuilt a number of those for Empire Corridor service between NY and Albany. Amtrak apparently does not like the way the rebuilds are running, and are being cautious about accepting them back into regular service. Since they will not be permitted to run at their potential top speed (in the 150+ mph range), I say why bother . . .
That could have been the catenary inspection car, No. 10002. It has a weird looking control cab thing, and equipment on the roof looks like pantographs but they are really used for looking at and/or testing the wire. The car isn't powered, it has to be dragged by a locomotive, and it cannot be used as a control cab despite the looks.
AEM7
Not electrified? Then how do the Acelas, HHP-8s and AEM-7s run in there, via extension cord . . . ? You're about five years behind the times, because that's how long the Attleborough Line has been electrified.
Perhaps he was expecting some other sort of archive system where they could be read but in a different system that could not be responded to.
I thought it was fun to read six year old posts.
Elias
The several times I've taken a bus to or from New York on a weekday afternoon, the inbound traffic for the Lincoln Tunnel is almost always severely backed up. Westbound traffic, however, is not heavy at all. Since this is the case, why is the bus lane not activated during the afternoon and evening so that the busses going to the Port Authority can pass the backed up traffic, just like in the morning? This would be much better for commuters who work at night, or people from the suburbs heading in to the city for a Broadway show, or what-not.
It may have to do with the approaches to the tunnel from the NY side, or the layout of the New Jersey approaches in general. I've taken the x31 through the tunnel only once, and I can't remember much about the NJ side. I do know that the NY side was a convulted mess. Most of the traffic from the buss lane runs into the bus terminal. -Hank
The reason the inbound is backed up in th PM,is,Of course because there are only two lanes in the tunnel inbound, so the outbound rush can get out relatively smooth. Also they can't cut any lanes westbound for the same reason- they need as many lanes as possible to get to the Turnpike,RT 3,etc.....
I am looking for brass subway cars .(R-12 & R-15) If anyone know were I can locate them please let me know.
THANK YOU
No commercial models of the R-12/14 were ever produced to my knowledge. WP Car Co. (Jeff Winslow) planned to produce these in the early eighties, but plans fell through and they were never produced. MTS Imports (Joel Lovitch) imported models of the R-15 cars in 1992. 100 two cars sets (one powered, one trailer) were made. They originally sold for $429 per set. Unfortunately, Joel no longer has any available. You might try The Caboose (Armand Mazzetti) at 5 Mohawk Drive, Wolcott, CT 06716 (203) 879-9797. They usually have a good stock of prior issue traction models, including NYC subway cars. Otherwise, check the model listings under this web site for dealers who trade in brass subway models. Expect to pay considerably more than the original retail price to aquire these models today however.
Pierce tansit in tacoma WA recently put 3 1970's GMC buses back in service. i noticed that on the front some said "GM" while some others said "GMC". why is this. they were made by the same company General Motors why did they put the diffrent lettering on the front? Did General motors change that and why? if you know could you please tell me thanks zack
I don't know if there was any specific reason for the change other than the sake of change. I believe GM was used first and later replaced by GMC logos. I do know that at one time (While newlooks were still in production) GM of Canada which used the same logo had considered using the GMC logo with the word "CANADA" underneath the "GMC". I don't think that idea ever materialized.
As an interesting aside to this, NYCT buses used to have the manufacturer's logo on the front, now, the only place you find it is on the builder's plate inside the bus. And then, you usually only get a name. -Hank
Here in Philadelphia, when PTC/SEPTA had fishbowls, the logos were covered by a round SEPTA metal logo & later removed altogether. SEPTA's policy is not to display manufacturer names on the outsides of its buses. The only exception to this is Bus #8590, a 1985 40-foot Volvo which was acquired second-hand from Volvo after being rejected by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority.
As for "GM" vs. "GMC", GM changed the letters about 1968, I think, when the copmapny adopted the current corporate logo. GM Canada continued to just use "GM" (The "GM" logotype is wider on pre-1968 US fishbowls than on later Canadian fishbowls, I think.)
Michael S. Buglak
Could somebody post the car assignment list for the NYCT Sub System as a re to this post?
Recently there has been a reported increase in crime and vandalism on the trains, and this has been blamed, by the union, the NYPD, and the SIRPD, on the lack of conductors on the trains, as authority figures. Most of the crimae and vandalism occurs during the school dismissal hous, when students may be the only ones in the cars. -Hank
Its hard to believe conductors are a deterrent to anything, since they stay in one booth in one car. My understanding has always been that most crime takes place in the stations, not the cars. With Metrocard, we will soon seen the end of tokens, and with machines, selling in stores, and selling by mail, we will soon end the need for token clerks, who also stay in a booth. Conductors are similarly expendible, but we need SOMEONE.
I wonder if the station and conductor position can be combined, with TA employees standing on platforms to supervise the loading and unloading of trains. If someone jammed a door, these mobile conductors could walk down to the source of the problem. They could also walk along looking for wise guys on the train at every stop. And they could see people caught in the doors more easily. Between trains, they could move around the station, providing order and stability. In busy transfer stations, conductors could remain on the platforms at all times as others move around the stations.
Wouldn't this be cheaper and better in the long run? On the commuter railroads, the MTA is eliminating the station personnel while keeping many conductors on every train. This seems to be the wrong way to go. Why don't they limit station access, use Metrocard, eliminate the conductors, and keep the stations staffed?
Crime and vandalism caused by students isn't a problem limited to Staten Island trains. Students seem to be responsible for a greatly disproportionate amount on the subway system as well. And no, I don't see how the elimination of conductors has much to do with it. Possibly a better idea is to use some of the school security officers to patrol trains, particularly ones known to be used (and abused) by students. Yeah, I know, the unions would complain, but that can be overcome.
The elimination of conductors on SIR trains is more of a contributing factor than it would be in the subway. Fares were collected on-board the train until July 4, and thus the conductor was walking from car to car collecting fares. S/He could observe any vandalism, etc, just by walking through. It also kept the students aware that the conductor could come into the car at any time, and thus catch them in the act of whatever thay're doing. -Hank
Having driven many transit bus school trippers I could see how some kids can get out of hand if unattended.
Maybe the NYPD and the SITPD should do more during school travel hous. Conductors never had the same threat as a police officer does and the training is different.
Not only kept students at bay, threw them off if they didn't have a student pass (I was thrown off even as a student with a pass that wasn't signed in right place).
I come by this site often because I enjoy not only the historical content but as a forum where people can post ideas and gripes.
However, I was just wondering how some of you would handle this situation. As everyone knows by now, there was some sort of trouble on the Canarsie line in the early morning hours of Tuesday. What happened though, at the First Avenue Station really pissed me off. The token booth clerk really did refuse to help people who were in need of information so they could make alternate plans to get to Brooklyn. The clerk posted on the white board "no trains". Fair enough. After that she refused to give transfer tickets to those getting out of the station (who had paid before). Not only that, to put it kindly, she had a rather limited knowledge of the transit system, not even knowing which way east was. She said to one passenger "Take the F train". When the passenger wanted to know how to get to the F she looked at him, shrugged and left it at that. She did this with several other people saying "take a bus". Hmmm. which bus would that be? She didn't even know that a bus did run over the Williamsburgh Bridge. As they say - she was sharp as a bowling ball. When I protested, pointing out that she needed to answer people properly, she called the cops and told them I told her I was going to blow up the token booth. Uh huh. I barely avoided arrest, lucky to receive a desk appearance. I must admit, I protested her attitude rather vigorously, but I did not, nor would I ever advocate such an act. What she told the cops is a blatent lie, plain and simple. Such a person shouldn't even have a job, much less be employed, and as such, I will seek to have her fired. Oh, by the way, her badge number is 88283, and I think, everyone should stop by the first avenue station and say hello to what our taxes buy us, the incompetent liar, the bowling ball lady!!! Oh, by the way, she let two people jump the turnstiles while I waited. If she isn't an utter waste of tax payers money, I don't know what is.
She sounds like someone who feels the world owes her something. Unfortunately, people like this exist in all walks of life, and you have to deal with them from time to time. I hope justice prevails in your quest.
I would have suggested people walk to Union Square, myself. Too bad they couldn't just walk over and take the 2nd Avenue Subway!!!
As for knowledge, I find it hard to believe that token booth clerks don't have to take SOME sort of transit system knowledge test. Can anyone describe the qualifications and training involved? How about the mental health benefit package?
I hate to say this, but not EVERYBODY knows what happened Tuesday on the Canarsie line, since (for me) this was not in the Washington Post or Baltimore Sun. And I only get the New York Times on weekends.
Also, token booth clerks sell tokens. They are hired to be cashiers. It is possible that some do not know that much about the subway system. That is not a job requirement. Perhaps the clerk was familiar with major Manhattan lines and just happens not to know all the ins and outs of the northern Brooklyn services, especially alternative bus service over the Williamsburg Bridge (not such a great alternative, in my opinion, anyway).
Surely many passengers who take the Canarsie line through Brooklyn also know about the G, J, and M trains. There are maps available listing trains and bus connections, with streets shown on them. The few desperate people who had no idea of what to do could find out from passengers like us who would (as I have done) tell them in a clear and simple manner what a suggested alternative might be. Then New Yorkers look like nice folks, the unknowledgeable people have their day improved rather than ruined, we knowledgeable ones feel like Good Samaritans, and the poor distraught token clerk can continue selling tokens and fare cards and stating that there is no train service.
I can't agree regarding the duties of token clerks. Yes, they are cashiers, but they're also the main if not only source of information for riders when service delays occur. They should have fairly detailed knowledge of the subway system, giving them the ability to recommend alternative routes, as well as access to bus maps.
That is one reason why I want to work for transit. I am in the very final stages of being hired! (As a station Agent- the new name for Token Clerk). I know the system better than some employees and have already saved transit the use of shuttle bus service.(Of course the M train was packed!, and so was the L train!)
I can't figure how someone employeed as a station clerk could ignore the people who were asking her for information on how to get around the problems on "L" line. Doesn't she realize that increasingly her job will be less & less to sell tokens, since MetroCards are priced to give discounts for buying multiple rides? The token may even be phased out eventually.
If she doesn't want to go the way of folks who made change at PATH stations or at the Staten Island Ferry or the Automat, she should take out a subway map and a Manhattan bus map and look them over for a few minutes. The whole reason these people are now called Station Clerks & not token clerks or change clerks is because their roll is to become more involved in customer service & safety.
And how about her station manager, one of the smiling photos on those posters? "Hi, I'm ____." I understand they make more than $50K. I'm sure they're hard working folks, but do they tell all their station clerks to call them day or night if there's a service disruption & they have to give alternate travel advice to riders?
Your correct about the salary being more than $50K but not so about being hard working. Most Station Managers did not come up through the ranks and are not totally knowledable or versed in the workings of the system. Therefore, they are largely ineffectual when it comes to getting things done. It's just another title, like Car Appeaance Supervisor, that was created due to political considerations more than for need.
Station Managers title is now Field Manager.they make 70-75,000 a year.every Field Manager in Station Division was a railroad clerk first and then got promoted to station supervisor level 1 and level 2.nobody can come off the street and become a Field Manager.it takes a supervisor 8 years to put in for Field Manager.
Maybe that's the way it is now but it was different a few years ago. You'll never convince me that the stationmanager from Brighton Beach/Stillwell Ave came up through the ranks - OR KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING.
Just to clarify one thing in your well stated response. I'm of the understanding that the new title for Rairoad Clerk will be Station Agent. As a Conductor we do not always have the time nor the resources to fully answer a customers need for travel directions. We were instructed during training to refer these customers to a Railroad Clerk who has at there disposal a full size street atlas for the area, and all kinds of subway and bus maps as well as the ability to make a phone call to travel information if need be. Most people would not mind waiting untill the Clerk is not busy to find out there needed travel directions. There is no excuse I can think of for clerk not to help a customer with travel directions. If there are any Railroad Clerks, soon to be Station Agents, out here, please let us know what your day at the station is like.
I remember the Conductor/Bus Operator test with questions on reading the subway/bus map and questions as to the best way to get from A to B. I never took the railroad clerk test, I wonder if they had questions like that.
I took the conductor test just when I got out of high school, got a 97% on it and I think a list number of 2789 or somthing like that. I got called for Bus Operator, didn't have a license. When they got around to calling me for conductor (well calling for the physical test) I couldn't afford the pay cut (years later then the test given) but I can still give pretty good directions (just did today too).
I wonder if I will always look back at turning down the call for conductor.... .
It's never to late to start a new career, it just depends on your present life situation. I spent 10 years in a career that I needed to end for a variety of reasons, I earned an excelent salary and had great benefits. I knew I wanted to work for the TA, I wanted to work on the subway. Back in '94 or '95 one month I took the Bus Operator exam and the next month I took the Conductor exam. Passed both exams with very nice list#'s low 1,000's for Bus Operators and 510 for Conductor. I then set out to prepare my self financialy and emotionaly for a new start. I got called for Bus Operator late in '95. I was not ready, I turned the job down. Also I did not want to be a Bus Operator. Late '96 or early '97 I heard that the test for Train Operator was being planned for late '97 or early '98, and that TA Bus Operators were elegible. I was just about ready and I wanted to work in the Subway. I contacted the TA and expressed interest in the Bus Operator position I had turned down. They explained to me how I could be appionted and I was hired May '97. I had my sights set on the Train Operators exam which was now planed for early '98. I was sent to Brooklyn as a Bus Operator, I live in the N/E Bronx. I hated that commute to Brooklyn every day. But I had my sights set. Then, as if GOD answered my prayers, just before Thanksgiving I was contacted and offered a position as a Conductor. I started training Nov. 24 '97 the week of Thanksgiving. Boy, was I giving thanks that week. Best of all I still got to take the Train Operators test last month. It was a very difficult test and I have my doubts wether I passed. I like being a Conductor and I am sure that over the years I will gain enough experince to pass a susequent Train Operators exam.
I don't know anything about your life situation, but I hope you take every entery level TA exam that would lead to the position you desire. No one knows in life what may happen, that may make one of the positions desireable, and may lead to fullfiling a dream. There were people in my group, 40 in all, that were well over 50 that had been retired, downsized or the like. Many of them talked of that "silly" dream of working "on the trains". I LOVE this job!!
I have seen the "help" book for the Train Operator test, very very interesting questions (tic)!! Since you were a Bus Operator did you get your same level pay during Conductors training??
One of the turns offs at the time was or is the low pay while in training and at the time I coulnd't support my family even if the traning was short.
Up untill a few years ago the TA was paying minimum wage for all time spent during induction traning. For Bus Operator that was 6 weeks. When I was hired for Bus Operator the TA had changed the policy and minimum wage was piad for only one week. The starting rate for Bus Operator is $13.73 per hr. I spent 6 months in buses when I transfered to Conductor were the starting rate is $12.74. I gladly took the $0.99 per hr cut in pay, but I was no longer required to be paid at minimum wage for the first week because I was already a TA employee.
Let's say you have a very obnoxious token clerk at your station and you want to report her because you have seen her on several occasions refusing to help customers and taking her time to open gates for mothers with carriages causing them to miss the train- how and who do you report to? How effective would it be if I did report this?
For sure, I would write a strongly worded letter to the MTA, making sure you can copy some "higher ups", and send it by certified mail describing this experience, demanding resolution. You might even want to cc: an attorney if you know one. The fact that the token clerk filed a false report may be grounds for her to be arrested, or certainly terminated on the spot, and you may even have a potential claim for false arrest or defamation of character. (I'm not an attorney and don't pretend to be one). You just don't do that sort of thing to your customers and get away with it.
You might want to consult with an attorney regarding this - you may have a serious gripe here. A desk appearance ticket? Incredible.
--Mark
what about the cops.seems to me like you did something or said something to them to make them give you a DAT.you can call up on her.but,she covered herself by calling the cops on you.believe me, she most likely got your name from the cop.thinking you would call up on her.plus she got the cops name and badge number.most cops in that situation will help the station agent out.besides the cop will never take a customers word over a station agent.I shouldn't say never,but at least 99% of the time.all this for $1.50.
For those Interested,,,,Effective March 1,1998
Gun Hill Bx4,5 8 ,12 ,14,16 17 ,22,26, 27,28 ,29 ,30 , 31 34 Bx 39, 40.42
Kingsbridge BX1 ,2, 3 ,7, 9 , 10 , 11,13, 18 , 20 , 32, 35, 36, BX41 ,55
Mother Clara Hale Bx19 21, 33, M1 ,,,M 4 (split Manhattanville)M7
Amsterdam M100 M104 Bx6 Bx15
Manhattanville M2 M3, M4 (split Hale),M5 Hudson Pier M6,m8.m9,m11,m14,m21,m22,m23, Q32(split Casey)
126 st M15,m31,m35,m57,m66,m116
Westside m10,m16/34..m27/50,m30m,,m42,,m72,,m79,,m86,m96 M102,,x90 and x92
Will Westside get 100st's depot's buses?
I have not seen the Depot Assignments re the vehicles
Why post two names... if you wanted anonymity, you just blew it...(hope your real name is not Monica Lewinsky.)
I have designed the new and improved second avenue line. If the line is made it will be the longest IRT line in New York City History. The numbers that I have choosen is the 8 and 10. As you remember the 8 train use to be the number for the third avenue line. Well the new 8 train will be local and run down third avenue until manhattan. It will then after manhattan into brooklyn and it will go down third avenue until it's terminal on 77 Street. If you have and more additions write in response. Now the 10 will go down alot of different roads in the bronx it will be express in brooklyn and in manhattan. After 77 street it will go down 86 Street then it will go up Avenue U the it will go down Flatbush avenue and end at Beach channel drive. A shuttle train will go from Beach channel drive to Rockaway Park then you can transfer to the A and S train. Plse help me give me any ideas. Thank you
Christopher Rivera
Well, in your hypothetical 2nd Ave line, why have a redundant system on 3rd Ave (Brooklyn) to 77th ST - why not use the existing 4th Avenue line for this service? And, why use trains of the smaller IRT dimensions - why not use BMT/IND sized equipment?
--Mark
Peace,
ANDEE
BMT is down 4¢ to $11.45 in trading on the NYSE on Friday.
Peace,
ANDEE
The Rockaway Park plan won't really work since the demand isn't there however on the 3 Av portion in the Bronx it could run via 3 Avenue to Gun Hill Rd, as a possibility make a option to run the line east-west on Gun Hill Road and it could go to Co-op City then to Bay Plaza.
It is unless to toss ideas around when nothing has been done yet.
What's next - PATH to Coney Island?
I was looking at some of the track maps and wondered something. Why doesn't the MTA in New York City use all those black rails I saw? What is the point of having an extra, say, 80 miles of subway track if they aren't used? I certainly hope that their third rails aren't active!
What are some examples of unused tracks that you have in mind?
I think he means all those middle tracks like on the Jerome Avenue Line and the West End line, and the Broadway Express tracks. I believe they are all energized.
Those 3-track line center tracks are used when the regular tracks are being repaired. On some lines peak-direction express lines are needed, on others they may not be as useful, and may actually just make most people's trips longer because of the less frequent service provided at the "local" stations. On some they are clearly necessary, like the #7. On others they may not be that important, like the West End (B,M) section or the Lefferts Blvd section of the A train.
The Broadway line is the saddest. It at one time had five different trains runnig through it, 3 expresses and 2 locals. Now it has 2 locals and probably will not get any more until the Manhattan Bridge is reopened or, maybe, when the 63 St. connection is completed into the Queens Blvd Line.
Completion of the 63rd Street tunnel connection probably won't lead to any increased service on the Broadway line. So long as the Manhattan Bridge tracks remain closed, there isn't capacity to run more than occasional expresses along the line.
I was thinking in terms of extra Queens-to-Wall Street service probably terminating at Whitehall Street, the way the EE used to 20 years ago, not necessarily into Brooklyn. But I can think all I want; the MTA decides, not me...
i think that if the mta was wise they would start doing what their customers ask. after all, they're the ones who ride the system.
About the Broadway line, which were the 3 expresses? I'm pretty sure the 2 locals you're referring to are the N and the R.
The three Broadway Express services were the West End (#3, later the T, now the B), the Sea Beach (#4, now the N), and the Brighton (#1, now the Q). The two local services were the 4th Ave. (#2, now the R) and the Brighton (#1, later the QB/via bridge and QT/via tunnel).
This is exactly corrrect. Having ridden the BMT lines since birth (1950), I remember that the numbers 1,2,3,4 were not actually used on the lines, just colored lights at the head of the train and 3-sign combinations on the side. By 1961 the letters started being used (T, N, RR, Q, QT weekdays, QB nights and weekends). The TT (West End local) went to Chambers St. weekdays as did a non-publicized Brighton Express (M) in rush hours. This is all pre-1967, of course.
The Triplex units had route and destination signs on the end bulkheads; they were used almost exclusively on the three Broadway Express routes. I never had a chance to ride them, though; by the time my family moved to Jersey in 1967, they were gone. The BMT standards had no bulkhead signs; I rode them on the Canarsie line regularly, but never liked them.
Mr. Rabbin:
You said that operating the middle track on the West End line (B,M) are not that important for peak-direction service... I have to disagree... Being a user of the line (I use the 18th and/or 20th Ave. stations), it gets severely overcrowded and having two local trains delay service... Here's a thought: Operate the M to/from Bay Parkway as a local during rush hours; operate the B express in peak direction between 36th St. and Bay Parkway... It works on the 6; why can't it work here?
As it turns out, I was only mentioning specific lines as current operating examples. I do not really know how crowded these train lines are during rush hours, since I currently live 230 miles away. Having B express, M local rush hour service on the West End sounds great to me. I hope MTA people read this and will think about it, especially since there are already 2 train lines running on the West End tracks, which does show that a lot of people must be using the West End Line. I believe that the West End express stations after Bay Parkway are 62 St. and 9th Avenue.
Yes, those are the two stations...
Another reason why the B should run express is, starting tomorrow, the B and C switch northern terminals during the day... This means that during rush hour, the B is going to make a longer trip (Bedford Park) rather than going to 168 St. I really do hope that this switch doesn't effect service...
I find the subway interesting. I just can't stand the trains in Manhattan! I guess it's a matter of geography. But I would really appreciate some information on the trains in Brooklyn. I know that the only thing that separates the city from Brooklyn is a river, but once the trains do, I find them so Interesting. Do I sound crazy or what?
Manhattan trains can be dull because they're almost all underground. In Brooklyn, by contrast, you have elevated lines, trains in open cuts, and even some surface running (L train). This variety gives riders a lot more to see.
Just as an aside, you mention the L train. It's got 'all that' and more. Bushwick/Aberdeen station is the only station in the system with an underground level and an above ground level serving the same line. -Hank
>Just as an aside, you mention the L train. It's got 'all that' and more. >Bushwick/Aberdeen station is the only station in the system with an underground >level and an above ground level serving the same line.
Thanks for pointing that out. In addition, the L (and even better, the J/Z) offers an interesting view of the Broadway Junction complex. Until about 20 years ago, the L also had the only grade crossing on revenue tracks.
Speaking of the Broadway Junction, if only the elevated line that ran down Fulton St. was still operating... Then, you would have one of the largest elevated stations in the City, if not the entire Metro area... The station is Atlantic Avenue on the L... If you see this station, it has 6 tracks... the 2 outer tracks are serviced by the L, and the 4 inner use to be the Fulton elevated that used this station to continue its journey along Pitkin Ave. into Queens... Talk about possible changes at Broadway Junction!
It's not Bushwick-Aberdeen that has the 2 levels on the "L" you spoke about. It's Wilson Avenue. Manhattan bound is underground (actually in a box on the surface. Canarsie bound is elevated (overlooking the Cemetary.)
i go looking for some information on subways for a school project yesterday and find this site. cool. then i finish and turn on the news and see that two nutjobs were planning to unleash ANTHRAX on a city subway? i find it very sad that it is so easy for terrorists to get access to this stuff and release it in such a horrible way. but that's not my point. why do all the terrorists try to put things in the new york city subway? what is it about it that is so striking to people like that. now you can't ride a subway without having to worry about getting blown up! what is this?
What's so attractive about the New York City subway to terrorists and would-be terrorists?
Well, putting all my moral training aside for a short time, and thinking with the goal "how could I kill the most people at one time with the most impact?" then the following criteria come to mind:
1) Lots of people in one place. (That one is obvious, and doesn't get us far). 2) The place should be in a major media center, near major media outlets, to maximize media coverage and thus publicity. 3) The place should be confined as possible, to maximize carnage, including panic, if possible. 4) The place should be easy to get into and out of, without detectors or guards searching bags. 5) It should be a totally ordinary place, used by ordinary people of many races and classes, to maximize the emotional impact and the "it could have been me!" terror. 6) It should be some key or "bottleneck" facility, so that the disruption to normal life should extend days beyond the attack itself by tying up that facility with the removal of bodies, cleanup, etc.
I think you'll agree when you read the above, it will become more clear why terrorists (and wannabe terrorists) prefer the New York City subway system.
(As opposed to terrorists and airplanes, which I have ***never*** gotten a grasp of, since: * planes are not so easy to get into or out of without searches and detector sweeps. * planes are not bottleneck facilities. One can go down, and it usually does not block the other planes from taking off and landing. * a plane can go down in an isolated area, far from major media outlets.)
I read something in the _New Yorker_ a while back that gives me an idea why terrorists and those of that ilk like to target airplanes. According to the article, while flying has a very good safety record, it is fundamentally an *unnatural* experience for humans and therefore engenders a lot of (sometimes unexpressed) fear. Targeting commercial airliners plays into those primal fears quite well.
I don't know what the source of this distortion is, but I suspect local media coverage. FACT: none of the nationwide media sources mention any "subway" in their coverage of the "Anthrax Boys" arrest in Nevada.
well, to prove myself i will tell you where i got my information. a:i wtatched the 11:00 news on channel 10 in philadelphia b:i picked up the philadelphia inquirer( the BIG newspaper in town) and it mentionedin both several times that they planned to unleash the disease in the new york city subway system. it stated that the plan was to have a passing train break( i would assume by running over it) a "globe" of the anthrax plague. so either two local news staples are right or i have nothing to worry about when i come to town on sunday.
Can anyone out there help me find instructions for operating the subway doors? I am particularly interested in instructions relating to when a conductor has to walk from one car to the next because platforms are on the "wrong" side of the train.
Please e-mail me with any info or leads
Conductors are supposed to be on the side of the train where the platform will be before the train enters the station. This is to enable them to operate the doors ina timely and safe manner. A good Conductor knows where the 'off-side' platforms are on his line, so that he can be in the proper position to operate. NYCT gets very upset if we open the doors on the wrong side of the train.
Does Los Angeles have a heavy rail system? I know they have a light rail because I just saw it on LETHAL WEAPON 3. How big is it?
Is the rail line you're talking about the large under-construction subway station next to the police headquarters, where the thieves were removing the guns from police storage? I think that was the heavy rail line -- that looked like a high-platform station for "rapid transit" cars to me, rather than a low platform for LRVs.
But leaving that aside, Los Angeles not only has heavy rail and light rail, operating as one transit system, but a commuter rail system, Metrolink. If someone fifteen years ago had said LA would have a rail transit system or a commuter rail system, much less both, they would have been locked up as a madman!
Now all LA needs is a real downtown.
Yes, they have about 5 miles of heavy rail line in revenue service, They call it the "red ' line. It runs from Union Station generally southwest towad Wilshire Blvd. They have had many construction and political problems and stopped expansion of the line because it is too expensive at $200 million per mile. Of course they haven't stopped building highways at $400 million per mile. Since it is LA I guess they will pay whatever it takes for roads.
Is any city in America getting new subway cars besides New York(R-142) and as I understand Philadelphia's M-4's?
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA or "T") has taken delivery of one Type 8 Breda low-floor LRV car for the Green Line. 99 more are due to be delivered by the year 2000.
The question asked involved subway cars, not LRV's. The Breda Type 8's now on order for the MBTA are LRV's, which are in reality streetcars.
Dan,
I'm glad you know the difference between LRV's and subway cars. I too am familiar with the distinction, but didn't see the harm in going a little above and beyond the scope of the question. Sorry if I offended you.
There is a distinction but everyday it get a little more blurred.
Actually, Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (Random House, 1996) defines a subway as "an underground electric railroad, usually in a large city."
Actually, the distinction gets blurred every day - for example - the Newark City Subway is a subway - an electric railway undeground. However, it was designed for streetcars and remains to this day a streetcar facility - with 51 year old PCC cars, soon to be be suceeded by new LRV's. (Betcha NJT will keep a couple of the PCC's as "historic equipment" - the rest will be snapped up by SF Muni and museums everywhere.)
The Green Line in Boston (the first subway in America) opened as the Boyleston Street Subway in 1897!!! For Streetcars!!!! and streetcars have run in it to this day.
Subway to most people (non-Rail) is what we have in New York, Washington, Philly, and Baltimore.
Chicago is a hybrid of sorts. Their 50's vintage cars were built with parts from scrapped 1948 PCC Streetcars. They needed new bodies to run on the high
platform "L" and subway system but they reused trucks, windows, seats, door openers and some of the other electrical hardware.
When the first PCC Rapid Transit cars were built for the CTA (the original 6000's) the local railfans tabbed them "Spam Cans" since the L used equipment from the turn of the century on many of the lines that didn't enter the State/Dearborn subways - the 4000's (the only all-steel cars the Chicago Rapid Transit owned) were used there. The fans said "those *!!***!!@@@ Spam Cans will never last. And Spam Cans they remained until the end of passenger use. In the middle 1980 SEPTA bought 6 pairs for the Norristown Line (The P&W) to supplant the (diminished) fabled Bullets. Those Spam Cans bounced all over the P&W at the standard operating speeds, proving that Clark B-2 PCC trucks were never meant for constant 55+ MPH for mile after mile on jointed rail. Those cars were all from the groups that were "rebuilt" from PCC surface cars.
I rode the 6000-series cars quite a bit during my visits to Chicago. They closely resembled postwar PCCs with their standee windows and blinker doors. I understand that cars numbered from 6000-6200 (and, for that matter, the single units built for the Evanston line, which also had trolley poles) were built with all-new components; 6201-6770 were built using parts which were cannibalized from Green Hornet streetcars. One quick way to tell the difference, other than car numbers, was that 6000-6200 had vertical doors which did not blend in with the curved tapered car sides, while the doors on cars using recycled Green Hornet components did blend in with the car sides.
CTA cars 6599 and 6600 are now at the Seashore Trolley Museum. They were built in 1957 by the St. Louis Car Company. 6599 is an "A" car, and seats 47; 6600 is a "B" car, and seats 51. They came to Seshore in 1994; I was one of the sponsors of the move.
They are currently on display but not operating, as they need trolley poles and other mechanical work. If anyone has some time and money and would like to volunteer either (or both!)...
Several sets of 6000-series cars are now at the Illinois Railway Museum in Union, IL. No, I don't know the numbers, unfortunately. Chicago Surface Lines has details on which 6000-series cars got parts from which Green Hornets, as the streetcars were sent to St.Louis Car Co. in bunches as the lines they ran on were being phased out. Speaking of Green Hornets, the IRM has the lone surviving one, #4391. It runs and looks great. There were 600 Green Hornets in all; 570 were recycled into 6000-series cars; one was destroyed in a collision with a gasoline truck (ouch!), one was wrecked when it derailed as a result of an open switch but was rebuilt, 27 were scrapped without reusing any components.
No Problemo Todd,
My Motorcycle club is planning a run up your way in the near future. At least 5 current & ex-TA Car Equipment managers will be on the ride. We'll be happy to lend a hand.
Steve, as long as you and your friends are coming up north, why not bring along a "retired" Redbird? I can just see it now... five motorcycles hooked up in train-line towing an R-33 :-) along I-95.
I enjoy your website very much. Since growing up in New York City, I an very much interested in other photos of the entire subway system. Most of all I am interested in finding photos of the signs for the stations and on the platforms and photos of the advertising that was on the walls of the cars back in the 70, 60, 50, and 40's. Please advise me if such photographs do exist and whom to contact.
I found some 40's interior pictures recently in a photography book.
The Photographer and book was "Walker Evans: First and Last"
I found a copy at the local library. There were about 6 pages of NYC subway photos. More portraits of riders but the interios of the cars and stations through the windows are visible Give it a look.
Folks‹
Now that Dave Pirmann has updated the system and it seems to be working well (Thanks, Dave!), I'm going to bring back one of our favorite topics: the Manhattan Bridge.
Many of us have proposed alternatives in the event the bridge is closed. I propose the following changes with the thought that the bridge will be PERMANENTLY abandoned, at least in terms of subway service.
To start, I think we all agree that the Rutgers Street tunnel must be hooked up to the DeKalb Avenue junction in Brooklyn and to the Sixth Avenue express tracks in Manhattan.
The Brooklyn connection is easy: it goes north of York Street.
The Manhattan connection is more complex. We can either come from Grand Street into the tunnel, or extend the express tracks beyond Lafayette Street to Second Avenue‹in other words, build over, around, or split from the current express tracks‹and then let them merge with the local tracks beyond the Second Avenue station. Either method will give you two tracks in the Rutgers Street tunnel. However, we may need to add two tracks to the tunnel down the road.
The next step, in my mind, is to do something with the Broadway express tracks. My idea: sever the connection to the Manhattan Bridge, extend the tracks through to City Hall, then connect the lower level of City Hall to the Cranberry Street tunnel, where the A and C run.
This would give you two tunnels with seven lines. One would carry four lines, the other three lines. Assuming 26-30 trains per hour in the tunnel, we're talking about trains running every 6-10 minutes. This may be a bit crowded, but it will be better than service without these connections and with the Manhattan Bridge shut down.
Once these connections are built, there are two options for service changes on weekdays from 6 am until 9 pm (give or take). This also assumes service to 21st/Queensbridge is normal, but DOES NOT assume 63rd Line is connected to the Queens Boulevard line.
******WEEKDAYS Option 1 (Q runs on the Broadway line):
B-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
D-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel and operates express along Brighton Line to Brighton Beach
F-runs express from 179th Street in Queens, through Manhattan, into the Rutgers Street tunnel, switches terminals with the N, and operates express from Pacific to 59th Street
G-extended to Kings Highway rush hours, to Church Street middays and early evenings. Runs local
M-moves over/returns to the Brighton Line, runs local to Coney Island, but is otherwise unchaged
N-operates via the Cranberry Street tunnel, switches terminals with the F, operates express both ways between Hoyt Street and Church Avenue, operates express in the peak direction between Kings Highway and Church Avenue
Q-operates from 21st/Queensbridge via the Cranberry Street tunnel, express along Fourth Avenue, then local to either Ninth Avenue (off-peak) or Bay Parkway (rush hours)
R-is extended to 179th Street as a local, but is otherwise unchanged
T-(NEW LINE)-runs from 21st/Queensbridge to either Second Avenue or Grand Street, depending on how connection to Rutgers Street is built on that side. Operates as a local. (If it runs to Grand, we'll need to build a switch near Grand to allow for a turnaround. Of course, running to Grand will also result in an extra switching manuever to get this train to/from the local tracks, but this is not a perfect model...)
*****WEEKDAYS Option 2 (Q remains on Sixth Avenue)
B-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
D-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
F-runs express from 179th Street in Queens, through Manhattan, into the Rutgers Street tunnel, switches terminals with the N, and operates express from Pacific to 59th Street
G-extended to Kings Highway rush hours, to Church Street other times. Runs local
M-is extended to Ninth Avenue outside of rush hour, but is otherwise unchaged
N-operates via the Cranberry Street tunnel, switches terminals with the F, operates express both ways between Hoyt Street and Church Avenue, operates express in the peak direction between Kings Highway and Church Avenue
Q-operates via the Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
R-is extended to 179th Street as a local, but is otherwise unchanged
*****EVENINGS AND WEEKENDS
B-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
D-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
F-switches terminals with the N, and operates express from Pacific to 59th Street
G-is unchanged (terminates at Smith/Ninth)
N-operates via the Cranberry Street tunnel, switches terminals with the F, makes all local stops in Brooklyn
R-is unchanged
(M operates as a shuttle and Q does not operate during these times.)
*****NIGHTS
D-runs through Rutgers Street tunnel, but is otherwise unchanged
F-switches terminals with the N, makes all local stops
G-is extended to Coney Island via the Culver Line, replacing the N
R-originates from Ditmars Boulevard, replacing the N to 57th Street, then operates normally
(B is a shuttle and the N does not operate during this time.)
Obviously, there are many questions about this proposal. One of them I could think of already: how do you get between Manhattan and the Culver line late at night? (transfer at Fourth Avenue/Ninth Street station)
I look forward to your input and ideas on this. Can it work? Is it too complex? Will it prove too confusing? Would you rather see something like this, or a Manhattan Bridge shutdown with no alternatives and lots of rerouted and truncated lines?
Kind regards, Michael
I thought that there should be some history inserted into the Manhattan Bridge Saga. For example, although much has been written about the (BMT) lines that cross the bridge, there is no history as to the why and wherefore. Way back, before the Dual Contracts, the BRT was blocked from traversing the streets of Manhattan. I believe that there ws some bad blood between the NYC (Manhattan) and the Brooklyn politicians, not to mention the rivalry between August Belmont of the IRT and the Owners and directors of the BRT. I have a pre-completion view of the Manhattan side of the bridge showing an elevated train terminal, or actually two lines diverging from the bridge. The questions are; 1. Who and what were the main transit interests behind the bridge. 2. What were the original rapid transit plans for the bridge. 3. How did the BRT/BMT get to control the (rapid) transit on the bridge. 4. How did the current system evolve and the current situation develope?
If the westerly tracks (now inoperable) are connected to Cranberry tunnel on the Brooklyn side, then service from DeKalb could be routed through the tunnel to the Broadway express lines at City Hall.
If that is too expensive (the Manhattan side could be tight), tracks could branch off the Cranberry into unused tracks at Chambers Street (J/M), then hooked around into the existing express connection near the bridge. That would require three curves instead of one, however.
Larry--
I personally think that connection on the Brooklyn side would be too tight.
Michael
Mike,
Why complicate things so much in terms of rerouting and readjusting so many lines service patterns? This is generally disruptive to commuters.
I think we should take as a rule that lines should remain hooked up to their Manhattan lines as far as possible.
Some suggestions:
There are three tunnels (Montague, Cranberry, and Rutgers) to work with, and the lines from Brooklyn which need help are five in number - the 4th Ave., West End, Sea Beach, and two Brighton Beach lines.
If connections are made to bring the De Kalb tracks into the Rutgers tunnel, including a new York St. stop for them, the F (Culver) could be moved to the Cranberry tunnel and then routed up the 6th Ave. local tracks at West. 4th St. This would not noticably lengthen the time the F needs to run, but would give Culver riders one seat service to downtown.
If on the other end, a flying junction is made before E. Broadway taking the Rutgers tunnel to a tie in with the current Bridge tracks under Canal St., both the 6th Ave. and Broadway Express tracks would be tied in together to the Rutgers Tunnel.
The operating pattern for this and the Montague Tunnel could then be:
D (Brighton) - Brighton Express to Rutgers connection to Grand St. to 6th ave. Express to Bronx
Q (Brighton) - Brighton Local to Montague Tunnel to Broadway Local to Astoria (replaces the N train)
B (West End) - 4th Ave. Express to Rutgers connection to Grand St. to 6th Ave. Express to Bronx
V (NEW) - E. Broadway - Old F Tracks to 6th Ave. Local to 63rd St. Tunnel to Queens Blvd Express
N (Sea Beach) - 4th Ave. Express to Rutgers Connection to Broadway Express to 63rd St. Tunnel to 2nd Ave Line (future - obviously)
R (4th Ave. Local) - Same as Currently - 4th Ave. Local to Montague Tunnel to Broadway Local to Queens Blvd.
M (West End Local) - Same as Currently - West End Local to Montague to Nassau St. to Metropolitan
Alternatives: if two more connections are built, linking the south side bridge tracks at De Kalb with the Cranberry St. Tunnel, and the Broadway express tracks at Fulton St./Broadway-Nassau to City Hall, the Broadway connection from Rutgers could be dropped. Then the F could continue as present, the N could be routed through Cranberry St. instead, and the V could terminate at 2nd Ave. or Chambers St. Another alternative would be a Cranberry St. connection onto Nassau Sts. express tracks, through the center tracks on Nassau St., dropping down and through a reconstructed Canal St. station to the Broadway express tracks.
As far as I can tell, these ideas use the fewest major reroutings and give service from pretty much all areas to both downtown and midtown (express) without changing seats.
Andy Byler
Remember the 25 train per track limit, where trains stopping at stations is concerned. With 25 trains today, the N, M and R crawl through DeKalb, Lawrence, and Borough Hall. The trains back up behind each other as they load and unload at the stations. If, on the other hand, two tracks merge into a tunnel after the last station, then diverge before the first station on the other side, I believe up to 40 trains could be accomodated per tunnel.
The current rush hour schedule is Cranberry: A 13 & C 8, 21. Rutgers: F 13 - 14. Montigue M 6, N 10, R 9 - 25, Manhttan Bridge: B 7, D 10, Q 9 = 26. That's 86 trains.
Note that the Manhattan Bridge, with half the tracks out, is scheduled for more trains than the TA says it can run right now. The Brighton is packed at rush hour, but the TA says it cannot add trains. Among other things, switching the F to the Cranberry would force 35 trains through High St, Broadway-Nassau, Chambers, Canal St, and an active switch at W 4th. They's have to cut service. This is why I am concerned about the bridge, even though I live on the F line. If the bridge went out, the TA would spread the pain, ruining my neighborhood too.
Of course, there is already a flying junction to two tracks on the Manhattan side of the Montigue tunnel. A similar connection on the Brooklyn side would raise its capacity from 25 to 40, but it would have to be under Montigue Street, a very narrow street.
One could also build a tunnel to replace the bridge, but that would be very expensive, and the bridge is in the way.
Michael:
You have certainly put in a lot of thought into this... Here's my feedback for you:
Like option 1... Like the N running through the Cranberry St. tunnel (A,C). This means that service to Whitehall St. would be provided by the M,R... Have question with the G: where do you have the northern terminal? Is it terminating at 71-Continental or Court Sq.? My suggestion: Court Square. You already have the R running local on Queens Boulevard, and the E,F running express... And in 2001, when the 63rd St. connection will be complete, you could extend your new "T" line to 71-Continental and end it at Grand St... Then, with the Q, move it from the 6th Avenue and operate on the Broadway line from 57th St./7th Avenue to the terminals you have listed, thus providing 3 trains down Broadway (N,Q,R) and 4 down 6th Av. (B,D,F,T)... At Coney Island, you will have 4 trains terminating here during the week(B,F,M,N)... If only the MTA could see this... It actually makes sense...
What is the difference between the door controls on the R-32 and the R-62? What is the difference between drum control and zone control?
When you refer to R-32 I am assuming you mean Redbirds. The R-62's are A Div(IRT) trains and the only other trains in the A Div are the Redbirds. I have very limited knowledge of the "R" designation.
Under the above assumptions the MDC(Master Door Controller) or Door controls operate the same. The style of the bottons is different but the layout is basiclly the same except for the BUZZER. The Buzzer button has been relocated to the bottom of the control panel on R-62's. Very close to the CLOSE buttons which result in the occasional inadvertent BUZZ while attempting to close the doors.
The main difference comes with what you refered to as Drum Control & Zone Control. On the Redbirds there are Drum Switches. Each and every cab has a Drum Switch, located on the window sill below the Conductors window. All of the Drum Switches need to manually set to the proper position in order for MDC to communicate with the rest of the Door Controlers(DC) on the train. When you set the Drum Switches correctly all the DC on the train know which DC panels are the MDC. Also the MDC knows where the ends of the train are. This operation is called "Drumming Up" I know this sound silly, but it is the best way I can relate how the door work. Alot of this has to do with reciveing indication at the Conductors position, that all the door's are closed an locked. This will then lead to the Train Operator reciveing indication and being able to take power and move the train. Indication is passed from the Conductor to the Train Operator by the Conductor placing the MDC in the RUN position.
On the R-62 the drum switches are eliminated. To get the same results as above all you need to is ensure the train is "Zoned Up" at only one position and this is your MDC. There is a button on each DC to DEZONE. By the way, Keys are required for all of these operations.
R-32s use a drum switch to establish operating zones. In each cab of the train, the train, the drum switch MUST be set to a specific position. In the end cabs (front & rear of the train) the drum switch is set to 'OFF'. At the two positions where the conductor operates from, the drum switches are set to 'ON'. In every other cab, the drum switch must be set to 'Thru'. This establishes 2 zones in on the train.
On R-62s in addition to most cars after the R-38s, the train is zoned up automatically when the Conductor inserts his MDC (master door control) key for the first time. These cars use a zone relay. When de-energized, it is equivalent to the drum sw. being set to thru. However, when the conductor inserts his key for the first time, he energizes the zone relay which in the energized condition is the equivalent of 'ON' on the drum switch. When the conductor gets off the train he hits a 'de-zone' button and the zone relay will drop out.
Steve,
I have heard somthing about the MDC panel open and close mechanism having some kind of memory and that it was disabled. If this is true could you please explian the purpose and the background of this feature.
Thank You
I was wondering if anyone out there had specific information on the pneumatic trigger box door controls found on R1/9s, R-10s, R-11s, R-12s, and R-14s. I do know that each of these cars had overhead consoles on the outside, just in front of the storm door, on each end. Each console had a buzzer button along with a key switch which was very similar to what is referred to as a drum switch or zone control on later cars. In each corner of these cars was a trigger box used to control the doors. My knowledge is a bit sketchy from here: as I understand, the conductor would establish zones by turning these key switches on at the two cars he would be stationed at, thus activating both trigger boxes at that particular end of the car, which became the MDC for that zone of the train. I am assuming that all of the other key switches were turned off. If I'm not mistaken, the door controls on the R-1/9s did not interlock with the controller; in other words, it was possible to run a prewar IND train with the doors open.
The boxes that you're refering to over the storm doors on R1-9's, 10's, etc. were used to turn the carbody lights on trainline. In order to drum up the train, drumswitches were located inside each cab. Each drumswitch had three positions: on, off, and thru. On was used at the active conductor's position. Off was used at the ends of the train. Thru was used at all other positions. Drumswitches were basically unchanged from the R-1 thru the R-38.
As for the door controls on the R-9's, they were refered to caps and triggers. There were two triggers located under each handle. One unlocked the doors, the other opened the doors. To close the doors, the conductors pressed down on the caps.
You're right. The R-9's had no side doors interlocks. However the R-10's and up did.
Crazy me -- I want to build an HO model subway system, based on the IND R-series, #'s 1 through 9. Can't find a model. Q-Car Company used to make an R-4 for HO, long gone. Any help out there?
You might try Hobby King, 2720 Avenue U, Brooklyn, NY. (718)648-5399. He had some epoxy Q-Car bodies last I checked (which was quite some time ago, but when you're desperate...). Also, if you are going to power these using the Bowser power truck (the standard method), you will need the cast white metal underframe. This can be purchased now from NH Custom Parts (Norm Hauser) at PO Box 68, Fountainville, PA 18923. Joel Lovitch (MTS Imports)
used to import a brass underfloor and can motor drive for these, but I believe I bought him out several years ago. You might still want to try him at MTS Imports, PO Box 50, Middletown, NY. You also will need the underbody set, and the end gates. These can be gotten from Norm Hauser above. Good Luck!
Hobby King on Ave. U went out of business some time ago, and as such, is no longer there.
Jeff,
You might call the Caboose in Wolcott, Conn. {203} 879-9797 or
Fab Industries [212} 592-2823 between 9 and 4pm. He definitely has
R9's and other BMT, IND and IRT subway cars for sale. I definitely
understand your love for the R9's, they are my favorite subway cars.
Anyway, good luck with your search, e-mail me back and tell me the
outcome.
If you find the models you are looking for, will you attempt to duplicate the stippled grime coating they wore over their original paint during the 60's?
to Gary Jacobi:
Finally got your message about paint. I most certainly do intend to paint my subway models (when and if) authentic grime. I remember when the City actually cleaned a few and discovered the transit logo underneath all that stuff.
Yes, when the R1/9s were cleaned for the first time, the "City of New York" lettering on their sides became visible again after being covered over with grime. Some of the paint was cleaned off the doors in the process, leaving white areas. Interestingly enough, except for those R1/9s which were repainted silver and blue during the early 70s, I don't believe any of them ever got repainted on the outside.
Glad to hear that you are intending to produce an accurate model! Matching the color might be easier if you use a sample of the crud that forms around your car's oil drain plug between oil changes because that is exactly what it looked like! Good thing it is not necessary in HO scale to attempt to duplicate the texture of the finish. That was indescribable!
Although I do not paint my models in a "weathered" finish, I have seen models that reproduce the grime and grunge of the NYCTA very accurately using a product called "Rustall". First the model is painted a flat grimy black (Floquil's is perfect). Then the model is given various washes with the Rustall
solutions. The end result is very convincing, and reproduces the brownish-black grunge very well. I suggest that you give this product a try if you wish to recreate the grunge "look" to your model cars. You can recreate the "City of New York" lettering on the car sides by using 6" scale "Railroad Roman" decals.
I use Microscale products exclusively, and have had very good luck with them. The lettering should be applied after you paint the cars grimy black and coat them with a clear gloss coat. Then apply the decals, coat the car with "Dullcoat" and then proceed with the Rustall treatment.
Thanks to all who are helping me paint my models, which I don't have yet. Talk about the cart before the horse-power. Still working on finding IND R-1/9 series models. My ultimate goal is a tri-level (working) HO system: IND E/F subway, Green Line bus, and IRT 7 elevated. Ambitious, but also nostalgic.
If you expect the green line busses to operate, you are beyond just ambitious! Good luck with whatever you decide on; by the way, one of the reasons you have gotten so much advice on painting, is that so many great dream projects like this one often never get beyond painting.
That's why there's the Bahn simulation program!
Simulation program???? Blasphemous!
Gary Jacobi: there's a gadget out that runs vehicles on a roadway. Working on it.
New ambition: I wonder if I can fit one of those TV cameras in a subway car. Think of the view!
Would a slot car track work for the buses? Were there any made in HO size??
Whoa! There's a new angle. Bless the 'net.
I will now initiate research into HO-size slots. In my other spare time.
If you can live with a slot, you have it made! Tyco and Aurora still make HO slot cars, even though they perform poorly at the speeds kids like to run them. All they need to run is a routed slot about 5/64" wide with electrical pickup rails flush with the surface on either side. If you refrain from full throttle running you might get by using stick-on copper foil, or use "buried" N scale track.
I remember the Auroroa cars Now, how do you streach the wheelbase to get a bus body on the car?
It could be done, but there is an easier way. Remove the front wheels, but retain the slot pin. the remaining wheels, which are the drine wheels, should wind up a bit far back, but still acceptable as front wheels. The pin could even protrude a bit beyond the front bumper. The rear wheels would be idlers. This would retain the geometry of the drive wheel to pin distance, which should assure the vehicle will track around curves. I'm fairly sure a rear wheel drive with a front pin would behave poorly on curves.
Sounds like that should work from what I remember of the cars. I got my first experience changing brushes on electric motors on the little Aurora cars. I will be interested to see how this project turns out.
Thanx, all who have answered me so far. Gary Jacobi, I could not retrieve your message for some reason. Please try again. I'm on my way to modelling subways!!
Jeff,
Read my posting that I answered in response to where you might
can purchase the R-9's subway models. I sent it on Tuesday night.
To whom it may concern: I am doing a report on the N.Y.C. Subway system. I need information on the Subway. I would like info on how the Subway was originated, and interesting facts about the Subway. If you can help, I would be very greatful.
Take a look at all the resources located on this site. They are extensive and describe the hsitory of the subway system along with other interesting things like abandoned stations and the like. What kind of report are you doing? For school?
As I was riding the #5 train downtown, I saw and old abandoned station between Canal St. station and Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall station. What was this station, was it Worth St.? I'm not to sure what it used to be. And also when that same ride, I got off at the Wall St. station I noticed that the token booth were wooden and small. Are these token booths replicas of old booths or are they the original ones?
This station is Worth Street. The station was closed due tO;
1- Closeness to Brooklyn Bridge after the Brooklyn Bridge Station was extended further North (AN entrance is 1-3 blocks away)
2- Designed for 5 car trains-and they are running 10 car locals now.
It was easier to extend Brooklyn Bridge and remove the gap fillers at the South End than extending Worth. (the gap fillers are still there but that section of both platforms is abandoned.)
Thanks for the info. One other thing, does any one have ever seen passengers stay on the #6 train before it goes around the loop?
This loop is in revenue service so you are allowed to stay on. If the train operator or the conductor tells you to get off, inform them of a certain bill that was passed (I'm not sure of the number but it was posted here a while back) that allows you to stay on the train.
Adam:
If you (or anyone else) knows of this bill, post it!... It'll be fun to ride through the City Hall station and see history before your eyes...
BTW, does anyone know when they are going to open the Museum at the City Hall station (Last I heard was March of 1998)... Being a student at Pace U. (only a block or so away), I wouldn't mind to visit the museum on my free time...
It really isn't necessary to have a copy of the rule that made the City Hall loop mainline track. As another posting noted, if one conductor or train operator gives you a hard time, just wait for the next train. There's frequent service on the 6 train during most times so the wait shouldn't be long.
I don't know the current status of the museum plans, but when I rode the loop a couple of months ago, I saw no signs at all of work at the City Hall station. In fact, the station was a lot less impressive than I had expected it to be ...
On a recent Transit Museum tour, it was stated that the plans are still
in the works for a Museum annex there. However, there are delays due to (1)
funding [go figure!] and (2) how to comply with ADA requirements. There
has been a decision that trains will NOT stop in the station; in fact
there may be a barrier between the platform and the track (clear plexiglass
or something like that?). Entrances will be from the street level, and
to comply with ADA there will probably have to be an elevator. The
tour guide would not guess as to a completion date... anyone want to
make a big donation???
I am kind of disappointed trains that trains will not stop at the station. I think having the trains stop would add so much to the museum, it will be sorely lacking without this feature. If they are going to make entrances from the street, will they use the original ones that have been covered up or make new ones? I think it would be a nice idea to use the originals.
It would be hard to have trains stop at the station because of the platform's curvature - this would produce dangerously wide gaps.
City Hall never had gap fillers, either. In those days, they just wouldn't open the center doors on trains. No big deal on the old Hi-Vs, which had manually operated end doors, but you can't selectively open only certain sets of doors on cars of today.
Also, I'm not sure that the platform is long enough.
A bigger problem, IMHO, is the amount of noise that passing trains would make. I can't imagine spending any significant time in the platform area of the station unless the sound was baffled. Plus, since the tracks are active, the platform area will fill with steel dust, which means that exhibits will get dirty rather quickly. I would think that the sensible thing to do with the platform area would be to leave it open for vistors, to fence off the tracks, and to place minimal displays on the platform. Visitors would spend a few moments there, but the leave fairly quickly.
--mhg
I wish I could donate, but I'm in no financial position to do so.
I rode around the City Hall loop today, for the first time. I was expecting I would have to hold my hears because of squealing wheels around the curve; not so The noise level was no higher than any other part of the subway, as far as i could tell. This was on a train of R-62a cars; perhpas the redibrds are noiser? If the noise level is always what I heard today, it should not pose a problem to the opening of the museum as a station.
The station looks just like it does in the pictures, although not as impressive in the relatively dim light. You can even see up a stairway leading from the platform to a mezzanine level a short distance above it. On that level there are wooden boards blocking what appear to be stairways going further up, but the platform itself and the stairway leading immediately up from it are well preserved, nothing boarded up on them.
As far as noise, the southbound #5 between 149 St.-Grand Concourse and 138 St. is MUCH worse. If the TA is interested in noise abatement, this track is the one they should concentrate their attentions on. I DO hold my ears when riding up that ramp track, the squeal is awful. The northbound side is not as bad, but still bad.
There is a high-tech squeal-reduction system in place on the City Hall Loop. They squirt water on the rails. It looks just like a lawn sprinkling system!
Thank you everyone who responded to my post about the City Hall Loop. Maybe one day I'll go around.
It's fairly easy to ride thru the City Hall Station on the #6 line. Even though the conductor announces that Brooklyn Bridge is the last station, he doesn't stress that EVERYONE must get off, as he would if the train were heading for the yard. So if you're in the last car, nobody will bother you & you can look out the rear door as the train goes through the old City Hall Station.
There's almost no idle time for the #6 during busy hours. As soon as it closes its doors on the downtown local platform, it goes thru the City Hall Loop & is pulling into Brooklyn Bridge once again at the northbound local platform.
By the way, can we riders do the same thing when the #5 loops through the old South Ferry Station during middays & weekends? I've never stayed on the train to see the old South Ferry inner track station as the #5 loops back to uptown service at Bowling Green.
No, I don't think you're allowed to do that because the South Ferry inner loop isn't in revenue service.
Uumm I don't think the innerloop at south ferry is in revenue service. They do make the announcement at Bowling Green for ALL to get off the ferry, sometimes saying the train is out of service. I know there are platform conductors (don't know the offical term) that sometimes try to clear the train and somtimes are not even around....
I got a good chuckle from your slip, calling the train a ferry, Thanks ;-)
Platform Conductor is about as offical as it gets. They do have a title for Conductor as "Passenger Controler" but I think that has to do with the Conductors on the platform at Grand Central.
If you want to see the inner loop at South Ferry, take the 1 or 9 to South Ferry and, after the train pulls out, look across the tracks. The inner loop track is in plain sight, and you can even see the arched openings cut into the tunnel wall with the station platform in view. Look in the Abandoned Stations section in this website for more info on the inner loop platform; it was closed in 1977.
I haven't heard of train operators or conductors refusing to let riders go around the City Hall loop, so there probably shouldn't be any problems. When I asked a train operator a couple of months ago he actually seemed somewhat surprised that anyone would *want* to ride the loop!
In any event, it's probably a good idea to ask first, rather than just staying on the train. There's always the chance that the train is going completely out of service and will be heading back to the yards.
Not all train operators know that this is now revenue trackage. I have been "refused" until I quoted the General Order number (which I don't have with me now) and asked him to check with the Dispatcher. Rather than put up a big argument, I suggest you just get off and wait for the next train.
It is unlikely that a #6 looping at City Hall will go out of service. There's nowhere to go but back to the uptown local track!
There is a Bulletin posted, which is how information of this nature is transmited to train crews, which in effect states: That the loop at City Hall is now main line track and that the conductor will make the follwing announcement at Brooklyn Bridge. This is the last downtown stop on this train, The next stop on this train will be Brooklyn Bridge at the uptown platform, Stand clear of the closing door's, Please. The clearing out of trains is not neccesary as custmers are permitted to ride the train thru the loop.
Many Conductors are not happy with this arrangement for a variety of reasons. I have heard the following: Some feel the TA did this only to save money by not needing the platform Conductors necessary to clear the train of customers. Some have expressed fear of being in the loop alone without the train being cleared of customers. The train occasionaly stops in the loop due to traffic, I seem to recall the Bulletin stating train are not to stop in the loop, but somtimes it can't be helped. Others think it causes general confusion with unknowing customers. One interesting situation I know of first hand that happened recently was of a woman who pulled the emergency brake 3 times. Not knowing what was happening, she was very upset to say the least, almost incoherent and inconsolable. Each time the Conductor reset the brake she pulled another one untill she was able to understand what was happening. No one is sure what was going thru her mind, but when they got to the uptown platform she ran out of the train and up the stairs. Made for a few laughs back at Pelham. The crew got back to Pelham 10 min. later than schedule. I have to admit that there is conflicting announcement being made by all concerned that adds to the possible confusion of customers.
Does anyone know how often do NYC Transit cars get an external cleaning. And also, where are these subway car cleaning facilities located.
I know there's one facility located at Coney Island.
The NYCT goal is to wash 70% of all cars every week. Of corse we'd like to and we try to wash every car at least once a week. As for cleaning facilities, the B division (BMT/IND) has car wash facilities in the following locations:
Coney Island Yard Jamaica Yard Canarsie Yard 207th St. yard Concourse Yard Pitkin yard has one that is inoperative. In the A division, the #4 trains are washed in Concourse Yard. Corona Yard has a wash for the #7 line and 239th St has a wash for the 2/5 lines. I am not sure about the other yards.
If you take a look at the IND E train, the exterior is filthy. I look at them and wonder when was the last time these cars had a cleaning. I think the TA has left this train line out as well as F,G, and R.
The E line is maintained at Jamaica Yard. This is the home base for the largest fleet in North America (1,052 cars). If the goal of 70% of the cars are washed, then 300 cars are not. The E line is 270 R-32s so you can see that under some circumstances, most or all of the cars may not get washed in any week. This is by no means a planned occurrence.
There is also a wash located in the Westchester Yard near Westchester Ave & Water Street in the Bronx. This wash serves the Pelham #6 line.
There is also a subway car cleaning at the d yard on jerome aveune, 2 blocks west of the grand concourse at bedford park blvd , that cleans the outside of the subway cars of the d and c line. the # 4 train also uses it also.
charlie muller
Does anyone know the proposed service patterns for 6 av and Bwy service ,,when the 63 st Connnection is finallly completed Thank you Steve http://www.angelfire.com/ma/TRACKMAPS/index.html
Last I heard was Q train up Broadway throught the connection to Jamica but this was before the stories of the Manhattan Bridge problems and maybe never getting back Broadway express service EVER!
Does anyone remember a sort of strange white Amtrak train that I think was called the Turboliner? I used to see one laid up at Poughkeepsie once in awhile, but have never ridden in one. What was this train used for? Are there any left? Was it called the Turboliner for any mechanical reason, or was that just marketing strategy? Or was it called something else and my memory is starting to go?
It's the turboliner. Amtrak purchased a few from SNCF, and then had ROHR build more of them, then rebuild the french ones, and finally retired them all after one of them caught fire in Penn Station. Recently, at least one set has been rebuilt. They were used for Empire Corridor service, mostly, although they were at one time used in Hiawatha service. The are capable of operation from either their gas-turbine motors (hence, turboliner), or third rail electricity.
-Hank
The turboliner had a sort of "light-duty" look to it, wouldn't you say? Were they fast? What kind of fuel did they burn in the gas-turbine engines?
Ok... The turboliner was a rather conventional looking train that had 2 turbine engines that ran the train. These replaced the conventional diesel. There were 3 types of turbines that Slamtrak used. The first was built by ANF, a french company. They worked ok. The second was built by ROHR. Even though ROHR can't do anything right, these were actually pretty good - they were pulled from service only two years ago. They are still around and a few were rebuilt. I think they are going to end up in service again. NY bought one from Slamtrak a while back.
The third was Turbotrain (tm). This was built by Sirkorsky (sp), the helicopter company. It was Pratt engines. It was articulated, single axles between cars, and, well, a dismal failure. They didn't work well, caught on fire, and supposedly were so unstable in a few interlockings that people were told to sit down as the train went through them. Via in canada used them too. They had tilt ability, and were intended for the NEC, to get High Speed Rail. This would be attempt #2 at it, #1 being the failed Metroliner MU.
The LIRR also had a few turbines at one point, but they were never widespread.
Union Pacific used them for high speed heavy freight, very sucessfully.
Amtrak ordered the first two Turboliner sets from the manufacturer, ANF-Frangeco, on December 28, 1972. The idea was to get something reasonably glitzy that could be ordered off the shelf. When delivered in 1973, they were so "off the shelf" that they had SNCF logos on the partition glass--Amtrak obviously was piggybacking on an order from SNCF, which in the early Seventies bought a number of these sets for its secondary services. They were a notch below the standards of the best contemporary European stock used on TEE services and such. Interiors were rather spartan by North American standards, and the fixed seats, with half always facing backwards, were particularly unpopular. Subsequently Amtrak upgraded the interiors.
Upon delivery, they were put into Chicago-St. Louis service effective 10/1/73. A Turbo maintenance facility was opened at Brighton Park, on the ICG (ex-GM&O) on the southwest side of Chicago. Four more sets were ordered on 6/21/74; as new sets became available, they also went into Chicago-Detroit service beginning in 5/15/75, and Chicago-Milwaukee beginning 10/26/75. This briefly (through 6/16/76) included a Detroit-Milwaukee through schedule--more for the sake of efficient equipment utilization than for through traffic, I imagine, but still one of the few cases of a scheduled passenger train running solid through Chicago. They also saw service on the Chicago-Port Huron _Blue Water_, and on the Chicago-Toledo via Detroit _Lake Cities_.
On 4/25/76, the Turbos came off their initial Chicago-St. Louis assignment, continuing in Milwaukee and Michigan service. They were officially retired from the Midwest with the schedule change of 10/25/81 (though I believe they may actually have gone out of service as early as 9/8/81).
Meanwhile, the seven Rohr Turboliner sets were ordered on 7/26/74, and went into revenue service in 8/76. By 2/15/77 they were used on most Empire Corridor schedules. In addition to their Empire Corridor assignments, the Rohrs were used for a while on the Adirondack to Montreal.
After several years of non-use, the French Turboliners were rebuilt with mechanical upgrades and the more streamlined Rohr-style noses. In this configuration they were intermingled with the Rohrs in New York State service beginning 8/24/87.
I am not sure of the last date of revenue operation for the two Turboliner series in New York State. One Rohr set was rebuilt as some sort of high-speed demonstrator a few years ago, but I haven't heard what has become of it, or whether any of the other surviving sets are to be given a similar treatment. From Amtrak's standpoint, considerations of standardization militate against keeping a relatively small class of equipment requiring specialized maintenance facilities on the roster. Then too, both the ANF-Frangeco/Rohr Turboliner sets and the older United Aircraft Turbotrains had a certain history of bursting into flame at the most inopportune moments....
Up here in my area I can pick up on my scanner a Conrail axle detector and it will say after a train passes-"no defects x no of axles"-Is there a way to figure out about how many cars that translates into??? Does each wheel truck count as an axle, or is it each set of wheels?? Also- how many axles do you count for the engines?? Thanks again for any help in this matter...
I think that the 'Axle Detectors' you are talking about are referred to as Hot Box Detectors because they are supposed to detect a hot journal bearing on a moving train. Hot journals can lead to catastrophic incidents if not detected. Since they count the number of wheel sets, unless you know how many locomotives there are in the consist and the wheel arrangement of each, any estimate as to the trains length would be only a rough approximation.
Also some Hot Box detectors are also dragging equipment detectors as well.
I figure you could count the number of axles, and divide by 4, since most cars have four axles. But then, how do you count a 5-well articulated COFC car? So I figured you could dived by 3. But then, ewhat if I'm wrong? And most locos have 6 axles, but some have 4, and some have 5! Now what? I'll run it by my calculus professor....
But as an average, I'd use 4, and assume there are only 3 engines on th point.
-Hank
i don't mean real dinosaurs. what i want to know is what subway stop was jeff goldblum at in "the lost world"? the only distinguishing feature i saw was a giant picture of a sunny blue sky. is this a real stop? i know that the train was composed of r-68's.
The scene in the "Lost World" was filmed at Church Avenue on the 'F' line. Incidently, it took over a week to prepare the R-46 train used in the scene which lasted less than a minute.
Haven't seen Lost World yet; I heard that it stunk, relative to Jurassic Park, but it is about to come out on Cable, so now that you have piqued my interest, thanks for saving me a few bucks! I presume there is an unused level @ Church Ave, similar to Bergen St.?
believe me, it did.
There's no lower level at Church Ave (except for the lay-up tracks south of the station. The scene was filmed at the station. I think there was a General Order which had normal service bypassing the station in one direction during the filming so passengers could not de-train on the platform during the time of the shoot.
Bergen Street lower was used to film "Mr. Wonderful" with Matt Dillon & Annabelle Sciorre . The final scene was shot by setting off pyrotechnics to simulate 3rd rail flashes and the car was rocked by the film crew, both to simulate movement although the train stood still for the whole scene. One scene from "Jacob's Ladder" was also shot there.
Haven't the unused platforms at Hoyt-Schermerhorn also been used for filming?
You bet! They were used in Nighthawks (along with a train of R-1/9s pulled out of mothballs); Crocodile Dundee Part 2; and The Warriors, just to name a few. The station signs are covered over with whatever station name is necessary for filming, although in Crocodile Dundee Part 2, the signs do say Hoyt.
Also do not forget the orignal The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3. Also James Brolin starred in a subway movie called ``A short walk to daylight'' it is about a group of passengers trapped in the subway after a quake hits nyc. James Brolin plays a NYC transit police officer who leads a group of passengers out of the subway. It came out in the 1980's. I saw it on TBS or USA network.
Charlie Muller.
And, lest we forget, The French Connection. Plus Where Were You When the Lights Went Out? I've never had a chance to see A Short Walk to Daylight; it came out in '72. You don't suppose they may have used Court St (this was before the Transit Museum came into being) for it?
I was perusing the site today and was looking at the map of the subway. I know this si a no-brainer for you veterans, but I saw that basically any line in the city can be at least reached from Times Square. What is so special about Times Square? I would have chosen 34th Street as a better "stack" for the subway lines. It is by( but not accessible to) Penn Station, which makes a little more sense to me, anyway.
An interesting fact is that the first Times Square station on the original IRT (now the western terminus on the 42nd Street shuttle) was actually just a local stop. Only when the IRT was expanded and reconfigured into its current "H" shape was a new express Times Square station constructed on the West Side IRT.
Making the new IRT Times Square station an express stop may have been due to pressure from local merchants, but I can't seem to remember.
Times Square is a special place in NYC. There are about 35 live theaters there (the Broadway Theater District), many movie theaters, restaurants, a large number of hotels, etc.
Why did Times Square become so special? Believe it or not, it's the nature of the intersection of arrow-straight 7th Avenue and diagonal Broadway. There is a "square" (it's never square) at every intersection of Broadway and an Avenue.
Broadway and 4th Avenue (at 14th St.) is Union Square (a park and the theater district of the late 1800s).
Broadway and 5th Avenue (23 St.) is Madison Square (the site of the original Madison Square Garden).
Broadway and 6th Avenue (34 St.) is Herald Square, where the main shopping district is.
Broadway and 7th Avenue (42 St.) is Times Sq.
Broadway and 8th Avenue (59 St.) is Columbus Circle
Broadway and Columbus (9th) Avenue (66 St.) is at Lincoln Center.
Broadway and Amsterdam (10th) Avenue (72 St.) is Sherman Sq.
The angle at each is different, ranging from 45 degrees at 72 St. to about 5 degrees at Times Square. Aha...there it is, from 42 St to 47 St there is a wide sunny space that is 350 feet wide (10 lanes, sidewalks, traffic islands) and has no really tall buildings (by NY standards). It is sunny all day there, unlike the rest of the non-residential parts of the city, some parts of which are not in shade for only about two hours because the buildings are so tall.
The opennes and sunniness of Times Square is what caused it to become the center of NYC. Then the theaters and lit up signs made it "sunny" 24 hours a day. If another place was lit up at night, it would look brighter at night than during the day. So it is mainly because of a quirk of fate, that around 42 St. Broadway, the oldest road in NYC, a former Indian road, happens to be nearly parallel to the Hudson River at that point, so it forms a long wide road at its intersection with 7th Avenue at 44 St (not exactly at 42 St). In fact it's so long, that the northern part is officially called Duffy Square.
BTW, the trains at Times Square (other than the Shuttle and the #7) are in nearly the same configuration as at 34 St. some at 6th Avenue, some at 7th and some at 8th. Of course, the Broadway one is under the central one (7th) at 42 St. + the two crosstown routes are there.
Note that the L line goes under 14 St for the same reason that the Flushing line goes under 42 St. A large theater, restaurant, and shopping district was along 14 St at the beginning of the 1900s when it was built.
Anyway, that is why Times Square is the "Crossroads of the World" and the Crossroads of the NYC subways. Now if only the PATH trains could have been extended 9 more blocks....
Thanks for reminding me of the "Airiness" of the Times square area, I had been there countless times, but never realized this aspect of it. I wonder if it is related to the fact that the El trains never had a presence there, and so there was no building boom associated with tearing them down. In fact, the original subway station was Local only!
I had read about the unique daylight, the low buildings, and the width of Times Sq. in a newspaper article a few years ago. The lack of closeby elevateds probably made it even more enticing for theater. The closest els were on 6th and 9th Avenues, and on 53 St. The theater district, going from 7th to 8th mainly, never got closer than 1 avenue (1/7 mile) to the elevated trains. Interesting...
When the original mainline was built, the IRT didn't anticipate the traffic potential at Times Square; that's why it was a local stop. Within a month of the line's opening, Times Square became the second busiest station on the line, next to Brooklyn Bridge. According to Brian Cudahy in Under the Sidewalks of New York, a number of theater owners even went so far as to unsuccessfully petition the IRT to install crossover switches near the station so that express trains could stop there. August Belmont's concession was to have conductors announce the station as 42nd St. As a matter of fact, you can still see "42" on the wall of the original northbound platform of the shuttle, just before the stairs to the street. But that's not all: when the IRT was extended down 7th Ave., Times Square was almost made a local stop again! Hello! DUH! Luckily, the powers that be came to their senses and made it an express stop on the Dual Contracts lines.
As long as we are talking about the official names of squares, I just want to point out that the intersection of Broadway and Amsterdam (10th) Avenue (72 St.) has two triangular-shaped "squares": (1) the square south of 72nd St. is called Sherman Sq, (2) the square north of 72nd St. (i.e., east of Broadway and west of Amsterdam) is (or, I should was, since I have not been in that neighborhod since I moved in the 80s) called Verdi Sq.
The "real" Name of the Northern half of Times Square is "Duffy Square"
First i want do some greeting to all graffiti artist all over the world.
I'am now doing graffiti +- 4 years and it's a fucking addiction.
and i do it in trains(with a stone in the windows)or just tagging
in parks,the mall,toilets,walls,school's evrywhere.
I want to now if there people are just so mad as me!!
Tell me your story i want to know what's you are doing and
how.If you want to e-mail me send it to qir96@hotmail.com
thank you and ceep going on.peace from QIR96 THE HAGUE,HOLLAND(THE NETHERLANDS).
There are, unfortunately people as mad as you, as you will likely discover...
One day, when you are older, have a house and family and are happy and proud of your possessions, someone like you will goto to your house and smash your windows, spray paint your walls and finally, trash your car, its tires, upholstery and radio.
Then you will remember yourself as you were now, and you'll very differently! VERY DIFFERENTLY!
(Maybe you should save yourself the heartbreak and think of it NOW???)
Well put, Ben, but it makes me wonder, are European Graffiti "Artists" the same subspecies that we have become all too familiar with Stateside? I wasn't ready to tar them with the same brush, because, innocently perhaps, I thought europeans were more sensitive to public beauty, and would not condone diminishing it. I associate graffiti with a desire to impose oneself on society in an arrogant sort of way, and find it a real stretch to pass it off as art. I will admit to seing "something" in the large, stylized murals, but scratching windows? Come on, I haen't seen any "Work" in this "Media" that resembles etching, just a message that the writer has the power to force the maintenance crews to replace another window.
Gary, here we will wind up getting into heavy social philosophy - but...
I think that the outcome of the "media is the message" pop culture is that raising kids has been relegated to the profit-oriented somewhat parasitic media mongers (television, movies and all the other fantasy worlds of self-indulgence and outlaw-style adventures). They have invented a fantasy lifestyle where their characters and ideals are more real to many people than their actual "boring" fellow citizens.
The first generation that was raised this way was not done so necessarily intentionally on the part of their parents, they were simply swept away by a "cultural" revolution.
This generation was taught selfishness and lacks a strong religious or civic or other moral philosophy to engender internal commitment to moral standards and concern about the society.
Unfotunately, this generation is composed of individuals who as they raise their kids, demonstrate to them without words, the very "best" example of these bad qualities. The parents (even in middle age) continue to indulge themselves (with raunchy or self-centered or even antisocial music, restaurants, movies and TV endlessly, and concern for all the "good (physical) things in life"), and their kids take it all in. In fact, if you listen to conversations between parents and kids today you'll sometimes hear little difference between them : the parent whines at the kid that he needs time for himself, or some such attitude which fails to SHOW BY EXAMPLE, the kind of selfless care that teaches a child how to care for otheres (and by extension, for society as a whole).
(I personally chose a religious Jewish way of life in order to put back these (and other) important values into my family, and hopefully to help society at large).
That's a scary message, because it's true, and there are no easy solutions. Raising their children by Jewish principles didn't seem to work for the Lewinskys! I think what is important is transmitting the message to children, on a regular basis, that their contributions to society are important to you, and to all the people you respect.
(Gary, I just can't leave the point open: The Lewinskys to my knowledge are not orthodox observant Jews.)
The difficult task of raising kids with a responsible attitude (to themselves as well as others) in essence falls victim to the rejection of a "shared societal covenant", that is to say, an objective set of ideals/morals which people will commit to observing (such as our "Torah" - the bible) outside of the realm of the sphere of personal decision, where selfishness often leads people to modify standards with "the times" in order to accomplish doing what THEY want, and then justifying it. You might propose some human-based ethic, of course, but history has shown that the trend I just explained kills all such codes of ethics eventually.
This is in essence, the "rise and fall of the Roman Empire" syndrome.
(So, when someone asks me why I made my personal decision, one important reason is that "it works and it endures", as nothing else I've encountered...)
Stop catering to them. Pay them no mind. They are looking to start some discussion where in their sick minds, they feel they are PROUD to destroy.
I went to school, got an education and made something of myself. Most people do this. I'm just sorry that in Europe, this disease of vandalism has spread.
GRAFFITI IS COOL, WHEN IT'S DONE ON THE VANDAL'S HOUSE OR HIS FACE IN A JAIL CELL
Grafitti art is good when it is done legally. There are some places where the MTA has AUTHORIZED grafitti art.
How do you know? In 1998 you didn't have to register. You could have changed your handle with each post. Ben-Zion Y. Cassouto could be any one of us.
Really? So you think the same person would say these two things:
"The difficult task of raising kids with a responsible attitude (to themselves as well as others) in essence falls victim to the rejection of a "shared societal covenant", that is to say, an objective set of ideals/morals which people will commit to observing (such as our "Torah" - the bible) outside of the realm of the sphere of personal decision, where selfishness often leads people to modify standards with "the times" in order to accomplish doing what THEY want, and then justifying it. You might propose some human-based ethic, of course, but history has shown that the trend I just explained kills all such codes of ethics eventually."
and
"The problem with religious morality is that you only act morally because you fear punishment. Since I have no punishment to fear, my own sense of morality is based entirely on acting how I would want others to act when it comes to me. I do not expect some stranger to sacrifice his own life to save my own."
Seriously? Where do you get that I could be the same person as Ben Zion even after I said "The point is still valid, although the person to whom he's responding isn't here anymore to read it. But it's a shame nobody countered him when he first posted it." directly above your post? I wasn't talking about the graffiti artist from Holland, I was talking about Mr. Cassouto and his beliefs that only religion brings morality.
You seem to think that being sent to someone's 'kf' is serious punishment.
I WANT you to put me on your kf, you little @#!$.
I don't know where some of you can call graffiti art, or expression. IT IS VANDALISIM pure and simple. I don't know about you, but I like getting onto an N train or a B train without having to see any graffiti on the exterior or the interior. It shows me that we have made some progress in improving the quality of mass transit in New York
Amen to that. I remember the late 70s when the graffiti epidemic was at its peak. It was pretty depressing to see every car covered by scribblings and other "expressions" inside and out. People who do that sort of thing have no regard for anyone or anything else. It's almost as if their whole attitude is, "if it feels good, just do it". Unfortunately, tagging has come to Denver now, although our buses and LRVs are free of this eyesore.
IN THE EARLY SEVENTIES 73-74 TO BE EXACT I WAS {POLICE II} I HAD SOME GOOD
WORK. MOSTLY THE F LINE. I WAS ONE OF THE MGA'S
MASTER GRAFFITI ARTIST GANG. BARE IN MIND I WAS THIRTEEN AT MY PEAK. NOT BAD FOR A THIRTEEN YEAR OLD.
1. TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK!!!! It's as rude as "tagging everything you see". Graffiti is NOT cool!!! It's criminal, pure & simple. If someone tagged your house, automobile or property you would be screaming at the authorities to do something to stop "those d*** b*******"
2. Read some of the other posts again. Then you will realize how 99% of the world views graffiti.
Unfortunately the truth is the cars you are riding are no longer considered graffiti free. The TA considers the etched glass winfdows, the carver and dented interior panels and the gouged exterior stainless steel to be graffiti. Happily, 3M has come up with a fast and inexpensive process which will remove the etching from the interior and exterior stainless steel. We also have a process which will remove scratches from the FRA II Glass. Unfortunately that process is not cost effective YET !!!
Unfortunately the truth is the cars you are riding are no longer considered graffiti free. The TA considers the etched glass winfdows, the carved and dented interior panels and the gouged exterior stainless steel to be graffiti. Happily, 3M has come up with a fast and inexpensive process which will remove the etching from the interior and exterior stainless steel. We also have a process which will remove scratches from the FRA II Glass. Unfortunately that process is not cost effective YET !!!
Speaking of windows, I'm curious about one thing: are they glass or plexiglass? I was under the (mistaken?) impression that R-62s and R-68s were delivered with plexiglass windows, and that all of the rebuilt cars received plexiglass windows. It's a lot easier to etch plexiglass than glass.
All cars are 'supposed' to be equipped with FRA Type II glass. Some of the glass is heat treated while others are chemically treated and are supposed to be able to stop a thrown object or in some cases, a small caliber bullet (I don't want to test it personally). Plexiglass is only used in emergencies.
god has definied paper for pencil,
the side of a traincar is ment to be used as a place for expression!!!
you cannot chance that fact!
Your definition just points out the attitude that property that is not yours is meant just for the expression of idiots like you. That is why civilized society has laws and the people to property enforce them. GROW UP!!!
The fact is that I paid for that train car (2 words) with my tax dollars. I assure you that it was not meant (not spelled m e n t) for any purpose other than to provide the public with a form of mass transportation. For you to insinuate that God (not god) has somehow ordained that subway cars should be used for miscreants to express their perverse artistic expressions, is a dispicable perversion of religion. I don't know where you are from but try to get an education rather than spending your time trying to justify criminal behavior. THAT WAY YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO LIVE A 3RD WORLD EXISTANCE FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE......
I have never understood the anger that the issue of graffiti seems to
generate in some people. Certainly, graffiti got way out of hand back in the 70's and early 80's. Cars covered with largely illegible scrawls were, well, ugly. But there were occasional bits of truly attractive art, as well. Some of thm are documentd here on NYC Resources, like the "gnome" or "elf" character at the closed 91 St./Broadway station. And don't forget Keith Haring. I used to see his drawings in the 23 St./B'way station on the N/R(R) line, and I found them very interesting. I looked forward to seeing what he would do next. Trains aren't "someone's living room", they are public spaces.
The current wave of "scrachitti" is certainly not artistic, it is an annoyance and an eyesore. But people who write responses on advertising posters, for example, are not "criminals", and I don't think they should be trated that way.
BTW, after correcting the previous poster's spelling of "meant", you made a similar mistake yourself regarding his "existance". What does that prove? Not much, actually. Anyway, what does a "third world existence" in NYC mean?
Again, not much.
The anger is a NATURAL reaction of people who STILL believe in basic morality,
Dan (ask your grandfather...).
Public property is still the "private property" of individuals, even if it is the collective society.
Defacing someone or even "common" property is STEALING. Nothing less!
Defacing even an add STEALS someone else's money (who paid for the add and deserves to get his due results from it).
And in a broader sense, the lawlessness of "doing what you want to someone
else's property" is a factor in SERIOUSLY increasing disrespect and lack of
concern for others and one's obligation to society as a whole.
I believe strongly in basic morality--which I believe consists of respecting the rights, and the basic human dignity, of all our fellow men (meaning humans, i.e. people of all ages and both sexes).
Certainly, people who inflict damage on public (as well as private) property deserve some punishment. That includes the "scrachitti" artists, as well as those who use paint and markers on train cars, station walls, etc. I do not question the use of legal sanctions against such people, so OK, I guess that technically makes them "criminals". I do question the vituperation and name-calling I have often seen expressed against them, i.e. that they are "animals", etc. Such attitudes are contrary to the respect for the human dignity of ALL which, I reiterate, I believe is fundamental to genuine morality.
As for writing on ads, a subject I brought up, it does no actual damage to anything. I have, on occasion, made what I considered some appropriate remarks directly upon some ridiculous pieces of subway advertising, and perhaps I will do so again. Likewise, I have been amused by the similar comments of others. Such give-and-take is part of the spirit of New York. The ads are paper, a material intended to be written upon, and they are temporary. I think the advertisers understand that this is a risk their ads are subject to. After all, this is New York, not Singapore. I am very wary of those who place too much emphasis on "public order" at the expense of (non-destructive) personal freedom and expression.
I like the program which has been putting up artwork of local residents in a number of reconstructed stations, for example at 135th St./Lenox Ave. and 149th St./3rd Ave. I would like to see advertised competitions in the areas of other stations which are slated for such reconstruction; perhaps some of the people
who have been trying to do their painting illegally on trains can wind up doing it legally instead, and indeed wind up having their work preserved far longer than any graffiti would ever last.
They would never get the kick they want painting legally.
As far as freedom of expression: "one person's freedom ends where the next person's begins" as the old maxim says...
The anger is really a reaction to the feeling that a generation and more have been raised to view society, ironically, as a monolithic "they", instead of ours. This is odd in light of the fact that liberality HAS been the norm now for a couple of decades and the claims made for much liberalization and
anti-orderliness have been exactly that idea that people should not be oppressed by the establishment and should feel a sense of egalitarian mutual-respect community spirit.
In fact, the exact opposite has occured, the license to express oneself individualy and anonymously exactly as one sees fit, without external restraints and moralizing, has cause people to NOT feel a part of a society,
but SEPARATE (vs. "them" "the police" "the government" etc.)
In other words, the freedom from responsibilty has caused people to disconnect
more from communal society, DESPITE the fact that society's instutions and
philosophy have never been more liberal. Hence, like children never given responsibilty and discipline, they view the permissive "parents" as some
uninvolved irrelevant institution, and have even LESS repect for it, as in
our analogous case of "society".
Unfortunately graffiti is alive and well. It's scratching the glass and wall panels.There is no way to remove it except to replace the glass. NYCT is supposedly trying a solvent to remove the scratches but the scratches are so deep that nothing will work.
That's immaterial. Just because a thing has secondary characteristics does not mean we can make use of those characteristics (appropriately or otherwise) when the sole reason for the appearance of them is inadvertant, resulting from the existence of the thing itself. A paper ad in a public space is meant to be viewed only. Call it the primary characteristic. That could be considered the only "legal" or "allowed" interpretation of the object in question. The media of the ad has nothing to do with it.
To use that as a graffiti defense is silly. Because when "pixel paint" or some other low cost display medium is introduced, the displays'll be tagged sure as sheeeting. It's a way for a dude to bust balls, for the most part. Get back at those dammed old farts and old bags. Maybe impress a chick with his bravado too. I don't buy any "artsy" explanations for the phenomena. Plenty of other venues for that. Even for the poorest amongst us.
Let me explain the anger. There are about 5,900 rail cars in the NYCT fleet. My fleet is approximately 5% of the entire fleet. Last month, I spent $19,000 repairing vandal damage and removing graffiti. My line is not the hardest hit by vandalism but let's assume that it is about average.
$19,000 X 20 x 12 = $4,560,000 per year
for just maintaining the rail fleet at it's current level. Add in the busses and the stations and the infrastructure and you can double that figure. Instead of cleaning graffiti, my cleaners could be cleaning seats and removing gum from floors. Instead of replacing scratched and broken glass, my car inspectors could be repairing noisy PAs, adjusting doors and replacing dark fluorescent tubes. Instead of taking severely vandalized trains out of service, my Road Car Inspectors could be checking and repairing ammenities at the terminals. Do I need to continue?
As for me, my job performance is partially based on MDBF but also on PES (Passenger Environment Surveys) which rate among other things, the number of cars with graffiti and/or scratched glass. It also rates the lighting, PA and HVAC which I don't get to because my resources are spent correcting the damage created by the miscreants that you feel do not deserve to be called such names. But I ride the trains every day and I have to live with the crap that they create. I am inconvenienced just like you when a train is removed from service because one of those weasels licks out a $200 piece of glass. But if you still don't understand the anger, next time you miss an appointment because of a train delay, think kindly of the little darlings who are pulling emergency cords, holding doors and destroying public property in a mindless frenzy. Perhaps when you are inconvenienced, you'll think differently.
Any organized community, be it city, state,village, hamlet, town, etc. to exist needs some common set of guidelines to operate . Imagine the chaos at a busy street corner if every car decided to ignore the traffic signal because some drivers decided they wanted to go on red instead of green. This is called LAWS.
You would not appreciate it if Steve or myself or others decided to spray paint your house or your car or scatch our initials or pictures on your car or on your windows. Can we spray paint your house- Let's do it ! You'd have the nicest house on the block- we could draw subway cars and token booths on your house and car and tear up your furniture- Sounds like fun!!
If you have artistic experience call transit to volunteer/ We have many stations that could use a good paint job. WHy not e-mail steve and volunteer to paint a station or two or three or ...
Yes, I do work for Transit! I'll make a deal- you dont deface "my trains or stations" and I won't deface your house and car and ...
Please find some worthwhile area to develop and enhance your artistic ability
Society needs you !
PLease e-mail Steve or myself. We'll help you find areas where you can help transit legally.
--Opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT----
--opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT--
Did you read what I actually wrote? I don't deface trains and station structures with graffiti. I don't approve of people doing so. But neither do I go ballistic when I see it.
If it comes to a choice, on a hot summer's day, between a train with working A/C but also some graffiti, and a train with neither, I would MUCH prefer the former, and so I think would anyone thinking rationally. If MTA policy really requires them to address graffiti first, it is a very misguided policy. The MTA should not allow Mayor Giuliani to establish their policies for them on such questions!
As for general philosophical questions about the need for laws vs. other potential means of establishing and preserving respect for the rights of others, I suggest the books "Freedom and the Law" by Bruno Leoni, "Simple Rules for a Complex World" by Richard Epstein, or "Anarchy, State and Utopia" by Rober Nozick. All are available from (but not published by) Laissex Faire Books in San Francisco.
The trouble is you don't go ballistic when you see vandalism. You should! It is an infringement of your rights, almost as much as it is a violation of your rights if the government were to try to stop you from reading your (liberally bent)tomes. Graffiti in it's many forms conveys a message of decline, decay and lack of safety. People have the right to feel safe when they travel. Graffiti detracts from that feeling. I'm really not interested in your reading list, just as I'm sure you would not be interested in mine. I suggest that you do read the criminal code of NYC however, pertaining to vandalism of public property.
That's right. The subway belongs to everyone, not to no one. When someone defaces it, they are "privitizing" it, seizing it from others, using for their own purposes in a way that devalues it for everyone else, and forcing everyone else to divert resources (from something else) to remedy it.
It falls into the same category as throwing garbage out your window into the street, to get it out of your private space to a place that does not matter to you, with the least possible effort. Of like slaughtering almost every Buffalo and leaving them to rot on the plains, just for the heck of it. These acts are a combination of selfishness and stupidity, because the loss the community exceeds the gain to the perpetrator.
Sounds like SOMEBODY has studied a little Marshall McLuhan!
Rah Rah!!!
Unless maybe the hair on his palm gets caught in an escalator and he's dragged into the machinery ... wouldn't happen on the subway, of course, as all the escalators are broken.
The book that you can still find in book stores that glorifies this stuff really irks me too. When Disney built a station in florida for part of the studio thing there they had a car covered with graffiti at the platform. I think it was Alan Keipfer (SP??) from the MTA called Disney to tell them to clean the cars because all of the NYC cars had been cleaned.
The problem is that the people who commit these offenses don't picture themselves when they're older at all, or at least don't picture themselves with a house and family and many possessions to be proud of.
In many cases, if they think of people with a house and family and many possessions, they scoff at the "bourgeoisie" (though they don't know the word, they would nod in agreement with the attitude and sneering tone with which that word is typically used) property owners as "yuppie scum" or "the suits", who must have earned their money dishonestly, because how could someone honestly make more money than themselves. Far from discouraging defacement and destruction of property on a "what if it was done to me?" basis, such imagining probably drives them harder to commit the offenses.
WELL, YOU SURE SEEM TO LIKE IT. FORTUNATELY FOR US AT SubTalk, WE DON'T NEED TO SEE IT OR HEAR ABOUT IT.
I don't know how you guys in Europe do graffiti and frankly I don't care, but in America, especially and unfortunately in our big cities, it is a reminder how how inconsiderate and mean-spirited some people can be. But of course you don't care. "I wanna put my name on the side of a train." Wow. Must give you a rush of adrenaline or something. Do your friends egg you on? You don't need to act ignorantly( yes, I am calling you IGNORANT) and deface property that other people see and maybe even like. I'm glad that the graffiti-plastered trains of the 70's were replaced with the "sleek silver bullets" of today and citizens and tourists alike can see the trains and say "Oh, when did they do that?". I am a former police officer and have caught people like you many, many times. It often led to bigger, worse offenses. So do yourself, those that care about you and your community a favor and toss your spray paint and magic markers. It can only get you in trouble.
Let me tell you from experience, sadly. "Tagging" may seem fun initially, but it's a real quick way to get a police record. I got off with a warning and believe me, I never tried it again. Learn from me and stop before you get yourself into trouble.
I have two questions. How much white out have you been sniffing and why, of all places, would you advertise that garbage here?
I have two questions. How much white out have you been sniffing and why, of all places, would you advertise that garbage here? This has nothing to do with subways other than the fact that you like defacing them. Have fun in juvy hall!
From your posting, I'd guess that your IQ is somewhere between your age and your shoe size. Let me tell you about graffiti and tagging from the other side of the fence.
First - Last month graffiti/vandalism cost almost $15,000.00 on my fleet of 292 cars. That's $180,000 per year. Where do you think that money comes from and who do you think pays for it.
Second - Not often enough but frequently, I see your type caught, arrested,handcuffed and dragged off to be processed. You waste the time and resources of the police and our courts. Lawyers must love your type.
Finally - every once in a while one of you really screw up. You get hit by a train or electrocute yourself on a 3rd rail. Some poor train operator gets to feel guilty for the rest of his life, one of my people has the wonderful task of scraping parts of your skull and brains off of the under-car equipment. Some poor cop has to knock on your parents door and console them while he explains how their child "had an accident".
Yeah, graffiti is really cool. BUT ONLY IF YOU ARE A LOSER !!!
Thank you, Steve for telling the young fools the other side of the story. Down Baltimore way the MTA policy is that if ANY graffiti shows up on a vehicle - back it goes to the paint shop. Result - very little graffiti on a bus, LRV or subway car in Baltimore.
At the Baltimore Streetcar Museum we get tagged about every 15 months. The substation gets hit the most and as soon as it shows up our resident sign and lettering man goes to work with the chemical cleaners and after 7 or 8 man-hours of work, no more tag. Needless to say, we're never too happy to have to do it.
One of the local "wags" suggested we put the building in a cage and wire the cage to the 12,500 volts across the street. You tag, you go "bang!". (The current has been known to explode pigeons that ground themselves. I once SAW a pantograph blown off a Metroliner when the pan grounded the bird.) The local cops think the idea is just dandy. (Cops tend to have ideas for the lawless that the lawyers tend to object to.)
Since my son-in-law is a Sgt. on the NYC Police Force, I know what you are referring to. We try to remove graffiti at the terminals (the ink or paint kind, anyway) More difficult is the etching of the glass and worse still is the etching of the stainless steel skin of the cars with smooth finishes. As for 12.5 KV, I have other thoughts about appropriate justice. I'd like to turn a few of my cleaners, with broom handles, loose on some of these mindless jerks.
One interesting note: I regularly take "WARP"s. They are the people who are sentenced to community service for 'tagging, and other similar infractions. I usually have them removing the wax graffiti from the exterior of the car and gum from the floors. Suprisingly, most do a damn good job and some even want to come to work for us.
Why are you responding to a Eight Year Old message?
Thanks to screwed up people like you, the world's subways and public facilities are defaced, made filthy, and destroyed.
Graffiti is an disgusting eyesore. It needs to be stamped out. As part of the program, criminals like you should be jailed, so you can indulge your passion spray-painting the shithouse of some stinking prison.
Why are you responding to a Four Year Old message?
GRAFFITTI AIN'T THE WAY TO GO!
It may be fun for a while, but later on you realize certain things. If you get caught, trouble is headed your way. But there are serveral things that go to this, such as ANGER AND FRUSTRATION (how does having a dad practically abandon a family feel, and failing 4 of 5 major subjects in school feel like? ).I know this because I used to be this kind of person. But later on I began to realize (without getting caught) "How can I do this to the subway I love so much?" And a little later I just stopped because I realized that it's not fun at all, and all you and the NYCT get is trouble from it.
-Shunya
That's the hazard of replying to messages from Subtalk Past.
Yes it is wrong to do, but it makes you wonder how we will look at today's grafitti 20 years down the line. When it too graces art covers and more. It defintly has a place in urban living, though we don't want it to be there. Some do it for the the thrill, some do it because unlike an art museum the "art" they do moves and can be witnessed by everyone who is either "lucky" or "unlucky" to view it.
Can you remember exactly what what you read in 1998 by exact time and date?
A few of these graffiti pieces of garbage subhumans, get electocuted or run down by trains.
Maybe then we will be rid of these vermin.
'Hello Chris, I am CPCTC. I am here to help.' :)
Does the TA have a plan to reduce the lines at token booths created by the inexpedient metrocard and increased ridership??? The rush hour wait for tokens at Rockefeller center has, since January, doubled to 40 minutes! Was there any foresight on the part of the TA about such problems??? In any case, what is their response to these long waits???
Don't have an official response to your inquiry, however, it always baffles me to see long lines at a token booth. In a given work week, you have twenty opportunities to refill your Metrocard, or buy tokens, using your home station (AM or PM) twice or your destination station twice (again, morning or evening). If you wait for the card to be completely empty or for Friday afternoon/Monday morning,
you're doomed to wait. I refill my card once a month. During the final week that I have fares available, I seek out the shortest wait.
Come to Kings Highway on the D line. Two person booth (main entrance) reduced to one person. Accross the street One person booth open only 7am-9am 4pm-7pm M-F only. Now the 16th Street side of the station where 4 bus lines discharge passangers was JUST gotten back Extended Hours!!! Now 6am-10pm M-F but was just recently almost the same as accorss the street from the main entrance. The 16th street entrance is a two person booth with only one person in it. So once upon a time there were 6, yes 6 Railroad Clerks selling tokens and now there are only 4 for a small part of the day and only 1 for the rest of that time. Can you imagine Kings Highway on a Saturday/Sunday?? I don't I live it and when the Railroad Clerk has to grap their pail to empty the turnstiles the line reaches the B82 bus stopping at the corner!!!
I want my TVM!! (or is the MVM?? Metrocard Vending machine) Oh and you say the deli (3) up the corner sells Metrocards (you noticed the sticker in the window) well they have yet to have them when I run in there.....
How about this for a new entreprenurial venture. Buy a $15 card. Stand at the
end of a long line and take 11 people thru turnstile. Make $1.50. Repeat
process as many times as possible!!!
Now your talking!!!
As always, captialism steps in where government fails!
Wait -- you're not done until you go upstairs to the bus stop and sell your MetroCard to a group of four for $6.00, since it has four transfers encoded on it. Do this at Times Square in the middle of the day and you'll be sure to find tourists waiting for a bus without exact change -- and with your help, they won't need it.
(This, I'm sure, is illegal, but it must be mentioned.)
Just wait 'til the weekly/monthly/daily passes start up!!! Start camping out now!!
First- TVMs would need at least two per station plus more for stations like Times Square, Grand Central, Penn Station, etc. I'd say you would need at least 1000-1100. Next, the people have to learn to use the machines. NJT has had machines since 1995. Even now I wait in lines because the person inf ront of the person in front of me can't seem to learn how to use the machine and spends 10 minutes before getting the ticket.
Sure- eventually NYC wil have machines but there will always be humans- NJT still has humans at major stations. Also- who will fill the machine or give you back your credit card when it jams? (The human!)
The best thing to do to avoid lines is to buy early and at off-peak hours. How about refilling on Saturday?
-Opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT-
(Yes, I do work for NYCT, as a station agent)
Chicago is on a Transit Card system, and it sells cards in the L and subway stations only through machines. There are pre-paid cards for sale, but in certain drug and convenience stores, like Walgreen's and Osco, not at the stations, because CTA's policy is to have the station agents have nothing to do with money anymore, strictly giving travel info and helping passengers with the Transit Card machine. (This is the purported savings from the Transit Card system -- not getting rid of ticket agents, because they are still there as station agents, but keeping the money out of their hands to eliminate embezzlement. Since several agents have been busted over the years for pocketing fares, to the tune of thousands of dollars, this is certainly a logical reason to take cash-handling out of human hands, at least in the stations.)
Basically, you are dead on -- almost every station outside downtown has at least two machines. How many machines are in each Loop L station varies, but the subway stations have at least six machines each (each station has two entrances, and each entrance has at least three machines). They kept the ticket agents on as station agents in every station. The lines aren't too bad, maybe three people per machine at times in the downtown stations, but then I don't get on the train downtown for home until about 6PM, so I don't see the **worst** of rush hour. And as to people understanding the machines, the station agents seem to spend much more time helping people with the machines than giving travel info.
First- TVMs would need at least two per station plus more for stations like Times Square, Grand Central, Penn Station, etc. I'd say you would need at least 1000-1100. Next, the people have to learn to use the machines. NJT has had machines since 1995. Even now I wait in lines because the person inf ront of the person in front of me can't seem to learn how to use the machine and spends 10 minutes before getting the ticket.
Sure- eventually NYC wil have machines but there will always be humans- NJT still has humans at major stations. Also- who will fill the machine or give you back your credit card when it jams? (The human!)
The best thing to do to avoid lines is to buy early and at off-peak hours. How about refilling on Saturday?
-Opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT-
(Yes, I do work for NYCT, as a station agent).
Fare vending machines obviously aren't perfect, but they do seem to work fairly well in the DC Metro - all right, it's not entirely fair to compare that much more lightly used system with the NY subway, but it's still at least somewhat instructive.
Vending machines probably would be most useful in subway stations outside the more heavily traveled parts of Manhattan, where the bulk of the riders are likely to be regular commuters rather than tourists or infrequent users.
I usually try to buy my MetroCard at my church's gift shop (St. Paul the Apostle, Columbus & 60th). I figure the merchant gets a small cut of the profit from the MTA. But I also know there are many times of the day when I pass a subway station & no one's buying tokens or MetroCards. So when I'm down to just a few rides left, I keep this in mind.
Are you only using the subway for commuting, not for pleasure trips evenings or weekends when the token booth lines are empty? Hmmmm?
I know that Philadelphia has this great gauge( as in big) and that the trolleys( or subway-surface lines) have the same gauge. I know that london has a gauge of nearly SEVEN FEET! But what I want to know is do any other cities have gauge like that? The only other city I know for sure is NY.
Philadelphia's Wide gauge for the Market-Frankford Subway-Elevated and for its streetcar (subway-surface) lines is 5 feet 2.5 inches (or is it 4.5 inches? I always forget). Its other rail lines are standard gauge, just like NYC, Washington, Baltimore, Chicago, etc. (which used to have wide gauge decades ago).
I do not think that London's Underground is 7 feet wide. I think it's standard gauge, since the Underground shares tracks with BritRail, and it all connects with France's SNCF which connects with Germany's Bundesbahn and I know that's standard gauge. (BTW, both UK and France use left-hand running on their railroads. At the German border, trains pull into a stub station and pull out with normal right-hand running. The Paris Metro is right-hand running; the Paris RER is left-hand running, since it's a regular railroad outside the city.)
Some streetcar lines in Germany and Switzerland (and other places) are Meter-gauge It looks funny seeing those cars on those tiny 3 foot 3.6 inch wide tracks.
Spain's is something completely different, done 150 years ago so it couldn't be invaded by France so easily. Others may know about other places.
The BART lines in the San Francisco area also have an extra-wide gauge, maybe a foot or so wider than the U.S. standard. One of the theories, though probably not the real story, is that the wide gauge would make the trains more stable in heavy winds when going over the Golden Gate Bridge (which line was never built).
BART gauge is 5'6". It's true that a wider gauge results in better stability. They may have had high-speed running in mind when they decided to go with wide gauge. I rode on BART in 1981 through the Transbay tube and saw the speedometer hit 73 mph; on the Oakland line on the same train, the speedometer hit 85 at one stretch! If only New York subway trains could run that fast...
Philadelphia gauge is 5'2.5". Baltimore streetcar gauge is 5'4.5" Pittsburgh gauge is 5'2.25" Washington DC was always standard gauge, 1862 on by Congressional fiat.
The real oddball gauge-wise is Toronto, which is 4 foot 10 and 7/8 inches.
Is Toronto's gauge for streetcars, subways, or both?
The Toronto gauge is the same for both streetcar and subway.
The Philadelphia gauge is actually 5'2 1/4" (or 5'2.25"), not 5'2 1/2" which is the "Pennsylvania trolley gauge". The wider gauge was established by Pennsylvania law in the 1880's, I believe, to prevent the so-called steam railroads to enter cities and towns via city streets and interchange freight, etc.
Thus, one will find three different gauges on the SEPTA system:
- 4'8.25" (standard railroad gauge) - Broad St subway and Route 100 (Norristown High Speed Line)
- 5'2.25" (PRT/PTC gauge) - Market-Frankford el and city trolleys
- 5'2.5" (Penna gauge) - Routes 101 and 102 (Media, Sharon Hill)
SEPTA purchased a rail grinding train in the 70's which could be easily refitted to meet each of these gauges.
Sorry, but the Pennsylvania gauges are 5' 2 1/2" for Philadelphia and 5' 2 1/4 for Pittsburgh. The proof is that the Philadelphia & West Chester, which terminated at 63rd & Market (Pre-69th Street days) and shared trackage with the PRT.
Philadelphia cars can run on Pittsburgh track (Arden has two cars from Philadelphia), but a Pittsburgh car can't rin in Philly.
At the Baltimore Streetcar Museum we have shop trucks from Pittsburgh and Philadephia and the 1/4" difference in the gauge is easily seen. Also, the Philly trucks track slightly better on the Baltimore 5' 4 1/2" track than the Pittsburgh trucks.
I think you have them backwards but I won't argue. Check any of the Cox books on Phila trolleys or the PCC compendium by Schneider and Carlson.
Also, I have worked with SEPTA engineers and track designers on trolley track replacement projects. The standard track section drawings indicate a gauge of 62.25" (or 5'2 1/4"). It widens slightly on curves.
You are right. I mixed up the gauges in PA. Philly cars run fine in Pittsburgh, the 1/8" per side doesn't make much of a problem. however a PRYs car won't run in Philadephia because of the 1/8" wider per side.
At BSM we plan to widen the wheels on the axles of a pair of Brill 50 Trucks. We will be able to machine the outer wheel hub to reset the wheels to Baltimore's 5' 4 1/2" gauge. Rather than machine an inch from each hub, we'll have to machine 1 1/8" from each wheel. Our shop people believe strongly that we won't have to reset the transoms and the frame, the frame has almost 2 inches of clearance between the wheels and the frame. Only a redesigned brake shoe will be needed to regauge the trucks.
Standard gauge is 4'8.5".
Toronto's gauge is for both subway and streetcars with the exception of the north east LRT (I think its the Scarbourough) is standard gauge.
4'10.875" seems like an oddball gauge at first glance, even more so when you consider that Toronto is the only city which uses it. You may be interested to know that this works out to exactly 1.5 meters.
The story I heard was that in the 1880's the Toronto Street Railway Co. (the horsecar operator) came under the control of the MacKenzie-Mann interests, that also controlled the Canadian Northern Railway. The Toronto City Council, alarmed at the prospects of steam engines running down Queen Street, ordered the TSR to change the gauge of the horsecars. 4' 10 7/8" was as far out as the wheels on the cars could be pushed without resetting the pedistals. Thus, the strangest street railway gauge in North America, and possibly the entire world.
The 5' 2.5" gauge is used only on the Market -Frankford El and the Trolleys. The Broad Street Subway uses the standard 4' 8.5" (or whatever it is) gauge.
The Soviets converted their railroads to 5-foot gauge because they didn't want anyone else to be able to run on them. As you might expect, Eastern bloc railroads were also converted to this gauge. I'm very curious as to what will be done with these railroads in terms of integrating them with western Europe. Will there be stretches of dual-gauge track? Will some of them be converted to standard gauge? Or will new standard gauge lines be extended into the former Eastern bloc and Baltic republics?
San Francisco's BART uses 5' 6" gauge . New Orleans Streetcars use 5'-2.5"gauge
Hello,
Does anyone have any info. on Rail Data Recorders? I am looking for any available info. (installation data, recording requirments, etc.)
Thank you.
Here's a strange service workaround NYCT is running this whole week overnight:
And I quote...
"
Brooklyn-bound service runs to South Ferry then on the 4 Line from Wall St to Nevins St
Late nights, 11:30 pm to 5 am Tues to Fri, Feb 24 to 27.
For service to Park Pl, use the Chambers St station. For A service at Park Pl, get a transfer ticket at the Chambers St station and walk to the Chambers St A
station. For service to Fulton St and Wall St, take the 2 to the Wall St 4 station. For service to Clark and Hoyt Sts, use the Borough Hall Station.
"
This means that #2 trains will loop through the #1 South Ferry station, go up to Bowling Green and Wall Street on the Lexington, then reverse direction and head to Flatbush Avenue. I guess the Bklyn bound tunnel must need work real bad.
Understand something... The IRT tunnels where the 2,3 run under the East River have been around since the beginning of the system (I believe sometime in the 1910s that service was first extended to Borough Hall)... With the amount of people that use the 7th Avenue line (probably second in usage only to the Lexington Ave. line), they have to do work on the tunnel...
One bad thing: If you are a subway freak (like myself), the ride on the South Ferry loop to Bowling Green would be rather fun...
This same overnight #2 service pattern was in effect about a month ago for a week. I wonder how long it takes for the train operator to pull into Bowling Green, walk to the back of the train & head out of Bowling Green toward Brooklyn? It would be an interesting ride.
Actually, this is a regular feature of PATH service to Hoboken, every overnight & weekend, between 33 St. & Journal Square. The train operator has to pull into the station, walk to the back of the train & pull out.
Does anyone know when the 63rd Street Queensbridge Connection to the IND/Queenws Blvd. line will be completed? Also does this mean that the TA will abandon the connection between 53rd Street/5th Avenue Station on the F and 47th/50th on the 6th Avenue line? Finally, will a new Queens Plaza station for the new connection be included in the project and if it is, will there be a connection to transfer between Queens Plaza on the IND and the Queensboro Plaza IRT/BMT elevated stop?
The 63rd Street connection will be completed around 2001.
I believe all the rest of your statements are not accurate predictions.
Some 6th Avenue train (most likely the F) will probably still go along 53 St. That is not the section where the unbearable congestion is. The new 63 St. connection is to allow all (4) train lines east of Queens Plaza to actually go into Manhattan. Currently, 1/4 of the trains (G) go into northern Brooklyn, which requires many people to change at Queens Plaza. The G will probably never go past Court Sq. again during rush hours after the connection is made.
There will probably be no new station at Queens Plaza; 63 St.-bound trains, I believe, will go from the area around 36 St. Station right to 21 St-Queensbridge. Anyone know for sure???
That is correct. The tie-in from 63rd street is east (or north, as they say on the subway) of Queens Plaza. To see the proposed track diagram, get a copy of Peter Dougherty's book which is referenced elsewhere on this site.
My understanding is that the G will terminate at Court Street. There have
been a number of plans regarding the other lines, and my contacts in the TA
tell me things continue to be fluid. One scenario had the E and R remaining
the same; the F would continue from 6th Ave. through the 53rd St. tunnel,
then become local at Queens Plaza, possibly terminating at Continental Ave. The Q would come through the 63rd St. tunnel, and continue express to 179 St. Other
plans mentioned were (1) same as above, but F remains express and Q becomes
local and (2) additional new V service from the 63rd St. tunnel to one of the Queens terminals during rush hour. Again, my understanding is that no decision has been made since this is still a number of years away!
When you travel through the construction zones (on an E to get a great head end view!) you can see how much has been done, but also what remains. Heading west (southbound) a new local track is being built to enable the bed of the current local track to be turned into a decending ramp ("flyunder"?) to link both the local and express tracks to the 63rd Street tunnel. Heading east (northbound) the former express track bed is now being converted into the ascending ramp to bring the 63rd St. connection in. Express trains now use the right-of-way formerly occupied by the relay track used to turn G trains at Queens Plaza.
There is no plan at this time to make any changes at Queens Plaza or a transfer to Queensboro Plaza.
I got a scoop on service once the 63rd St connector opens. It came from one of the volunteers at the Transit Museum, so I can't make any guarantees.
According to this gentleman, the F will run local between 179th St. and Coney Island at all times. A new V line will run express from 179th St. to 21st St., through the 63rd St. tunnel, then local via 6th Ave., terminating at 2nd Ave., at all times. Some, if not all, slant R-40s have this V line sign already. The Q will run weekdays from Continental Ave., (supposedly express) via 63rd St to the Broadway line, then express from 57th St. to Canal St, over the Manhattan Bridge if it gets fixed, then express from Prospect Park to Brighton Beach. The G will permanently terminate at Court Square; the E and R lines will remain the same.
If what this gentleman is saying is true, then why would you have 5 lines running on Queens Boulevard instead of 4... The expresses would be E,Q,V and the locals would be F,R... It seems to be true, but something just doesn't sound right...
BTW, in the event that the Manhattan Bridge would close permanently, the V could switch southern terminals from 2nd Ave. to Grand St. and the Q could operate along the Montague St. tunnel...
Left out of this scenario is the fact that G line riders get absolutely screwed. Service to the up and coming neighborhood is already dimished, and the G carries more people in off hours than the R does. Also, why offer so many overlapping services? G line riders have the right to switch to a Broadway line if they choose. Here's what to do.
1) F remains the same
2) E remains the same
3) R remains the same
4) G terminates at Continental all times
5) start 2 trains, the V6 for 6th/63rd st and the VB broadway/63 from continental.
Give everyone the right tot ravel as they see fit.
Except that the Queens Blvd line can't handle 6 trains at the rush. Late nights the G may continue to 179st. But at the Rush, when the need is for service to Manhattan, the G just doesn't have the ridership. Most G riders go from somewhere between Queens Plaza and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, and make a connection to another train at either of those stations.
-Hank
That's what the complaint was about. The connection to Queens Plaza will be severed and all G riders will have to get the E or F trains at the Court Sq/23 St. connection or the 14 St. train at Lorimer/Metropolitan (requiring an additional transfer. Perhaps if they built a connection to the (elevated) 7 at that point it would ease the difficulties somewhat, or if they built a lower level platform and track at Queens Plaza to terminate the G service it would be more palatable.
If the final plans include Queens Blvd. local service that passes through 23St.-Ely, at least GG riders will only have to change trains once.
That's not the point. What the MTA is doing is a crime. Note the following:
If G trains terminate at the Square,
1) Service will not be any more efficient due to the fact the G shares common tracks with the F and the F has priority.
2) you are denying people the right to transfer to the broadway line as they see fit
3) there are no transfers now to the 7, which would ease things
4) there is a long tunnel between the G and e,f at Ely Ave. not only that, its totally unsafe.
the MTA should terminate its 63rd street project until plans are made to include the g, either a lower Queens Plaza level, or some sort of other arrangement. I predict big legal problems for the MTA if they go this route.
I find all this talk about "rights" being violated humorously New York-ish. I guess that the "right" to one transfer rides from my apartment to anywhere in New York is enshrined in the Constitution of New York State right after that bit about freedom of speech? Similar ridiculous talk is why you guys up in the City pay three times as much for an apartment as anywhere else in the country, and it has half the space.
My fiancee lives right by 2nd and 96th St. It is my "right" that the 2nd Ave. subway be built *now* so that we are not inconvenienced any further by having to walk to Lexington Ave. and ride on crowded trains. Furthermore, I demand that all the cross town lines have new stations built when the 2nd Ave. line is built so that I don't have to walk a long way for a transfer. Also, the Broadway express line *must* be tied in to it, so that I can easily get to Penn Station, where I demand that my "rights" be honored by reopening the tunnel to 7th and 8th Aves. so that I don't have to walk outside in the rain. I think there will be lawsuits if this is not rectified immediately.
Sheesh. With unbending attitudes like that, no wonder nothing can get built in New York. So your neighborhood is growing and is going to be inconvenienced because it can't get to Broadway on one transfer anymore. Its not like this is some giant mystery that suddenly hit you guys. This tunnel has only been under construction for 30 years, and everyone has known that the G will be cut back when it opens for at least 15 years now.
Grow up New York.
Andy Byler
Sad to say, I agree with you 100%. When the Mayor recently had barricades put up at 49th and 50th St intersections, so that people, for example on the south side of 49 St at 5th Ave had to go the north side of 49th to cross 5th -- a distance of maybe 40 ft -- people interviewed on WCBS (no offense, Todd) and other stations compared it to Nazi Germany and suppression of the Constitutional rights of people, etc. etc. Making an intersection safer and flow more smoothly is not some incredibly violent evil. It may be an inconvenience, but so the fact that I can't walk up FDR drive, bicycle through the Queens Midtown Tunnel, or cross the Major Deegan Expressway on foot either.
All of these are rules are developed by the will of the people through its representatives. Petitions and voting are how the will is expressed. But going "ballistic" over some small change in life is not reasonable. However, on my last trips to NYC, I realized why NYC is unlike the rest of the USA: One is CONSTANTLY assaulted by events that make you feel frustrated. You need a token, there's a line; you want to use a coin phone, they're all broken; you want to buy a sandwich, there's a longer line; you need gas for the car, you have to inch over to 11th Avenue; you walk down the street, there's a million people going the other way; you want to drive to another borough, you have to pay a fortune in tolls, and wait on a huge line to pay it; you want to sit under a tree and read, you've got to get to Central Park to do it; you want to cross 5th Avenue at 49th, you've got to cross 49th twice to do it. It all adds up. This sort of thing is what makes the New York personality distinct from that of anywhere else in this country. And I've lived and travelled in quite a number of cities here and in Europe.
Of course the good part is lots of colorful places to go, lots of cultural things to attend, there's always excitement in your life. But everything has its benefits and its costs. Oh, well....
That's not the point, and not only that, you don't have to be an asshole about this. The point is we are one of the most heavily taxed metropolices in the world, and what are we getting for our money?
To deny any neigborhood solid mass transit is a crime. At least you have reliable buses that service the east side. We don't even have that in Greenpoint. We are a hard working, tax paying community that has the right to mass transit, same as you. For us in the community to be denied it is a crime, and that's what's happening.
It would help if you toned down the rhetoric. Once you start babbling about "crimes" and "rights" and whatnot it's easy to attack your hyperbole, instead of address your point. Your point is about the need for G service. The rest of your post is just a lot of bad noise. You might get a little further if you made your point and left it at that. Please.
--mhg
You have to agree with I-man on several counts.
1) Opening the 63 St. tunnel should mean more service for everyone, not less.
2) Anyone travelling between Williamsburg, Greenpoint, etc. will have to transfer THREE time to get a train to Manhattan's Broadway line or to local stations along Queens Blvd. (G to E/F to R) That means three trains to travel from 21 St. Queens to 36 St. Queens.
3) Any train using the 63 St. tunnel will NOT be able to service Queens Plaza. So if you send a local train to Manhattan along Queens Blvd., whoever it picks up after Roosevelt will have no access to E or F trains. This means the opening of the 63 St. tunnel will yield slower access to 6 Av. and 8 Av. for anyone who lives near a local stop after Roosevelt, because they can only use the R now.
4) The least, the very least the MTA could do for G riders is give them free transfers to the #7 at Court(house) Square, similar to the Franklin Shuttle meeting the A train. But there's got to be a way to connect at least some G trains to Queens Blvd.
>Any train using the 63 St. tunnel will NOT be able to service Queens Plaza.
Can you explain this point? I was not aware of this fact, but it sounds particluarly troublesome to me. Thanks!
Adam, the reason they can not use Queens Plaza is due to layout- the curve would be too sharp. The new tracks will enter the Queens Blvd trunk line after the station and those trains can then run vias local or Express on Queens Blvd. starting with 36th street.
I'm sure if you look at the track maps on nycsubway.org, you will find Peter's excellent diagram of what this conenction will look like.
Thanks for explaining this. In light of this point, I would strongly support building another layer or section onto Queens Plaza to accomodate the G train and the trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel. Perhaps a new section can be offset slightly from the current station with a connection between both sections. I know this would be rather costly, but Queens Plaza is a major transfer point which should have access to all of the Queens Blvd. line trains. Also, I think it would make people's lives a lot easier. Finally, the 63rd Street Tunnel is costing so much now, why not tack on a few extra dollars while they can now?
Since you brought up money . Does anyone know why 1/3 mile of Queensbridge connection subway line is costing $750 million dollars? Los Angeles stopped building their subway because they thought $250 million per MILE was high! I had thought the cost of the queensbridge connection was so high because there was going to be a vast underground junction and bilevel station. However reading SUBTALK I find out that the G train must be terminated prior to Queens Plaza, apparently because of lack of capacity on the Queens Blvd line and trains off the 63rd St tunnel will bypass Queens Plaza. Even so, I think the work must go forward because the stub end of the 63rd St line must be connected to the rest of the system no matter how imperfectly.
I do think that the reason why the cost is so high is because they are doing this construction while keeping Queens Blvd trains in service.
And that there are a lot of underground utilities that must be relocated. Electric, Gas, water, sewer, telephone, and who knows what else must be moved, and all service must remain normal. Also, the tunnel work includes tunneling under,and around a major 4-track subway line, that must be kept operational 24/7.
-Hank
Adam, good idea but still "too expensive" The 63rd line hits the area between Queensboro Plaza(N) and the 39th av N Astoria Line stop. There is no station on this line between 21st/Queensbridge and 36th Street (G/R). I am not an engineering wiz but a station would have to be built on the 63rd street line and then a very long passageway (like the Port Authority or 6th/7th Ave or lex ave E F/Lex 51 or or 23rd ely/Court Square. The only reason, I think, the Lex/51 and 23rd Ely/Court Square passageways were built is because of new construction above ground.
I don't know where or when, but I remember reading that NYC permits a building to be taller if they include a direct entrance to the subway. I believe at 51 is Trump's compolex and in Queens is Citibank Queens.
I do not think there are plans for a building over the line-at least not yet.
--opinions expressed here are my own and not those of the MTA or NYCT--
Actually, I believe it's citicorp on both sides. The E/F are kind of a vertical subway for the buildings....
-Hank
Both the 51/Lex and 23-Ely/Court Square connection were built to cut down on the number of people waiting to change trains at the Queens Plaza platforms. Without the Court Sq/23-Ely connection, all G riders had to change at Queens Plaza to get to Manhattan. Now you can get the E and F one stop early. Before Lex/51 were connected, all E, F, and G riders in Queens had to change at Queens Plaza to get the R, which was the only connection to the Lexington Avenue Line. Now the E and F connect to the Lexington Avenue Line directly.
I've never used the transfer at 23rd - Ely, although I've ridden many an E and F train through there. According to what other people have posted, there is a long corridor to the Court Square station which is perceived as being unsafe. Perhaps the MTA should put a beat cop on patrol, if not at all times, then at least at night. I'm willing to bet that that particular transfer was added in anticipation of the G being cut back when the Queens connection opened.
P. S. Putting in a lower level at Queens Plaza for the G is a good idea. Now what if such a level had been put in when that line was originally built, a la 42nd St....
There is an entracnce with turnstiles right in the middle of the connecting passageway, built mainly for people working in the Citibank office tower there. I would think they could at least put in mirrors so the whole passageway would be visible from the token booth, if they have not already done so. Or better yet, TV cameras and monitors.
The idea here being that bypassing Queens Plaza, the last stop befor ethe lines splint to 6/8 Ave and B'way, and also the first chance to go from an express to a local, would decrease congestion at the station. More people would, however, be transfering at Roosevelt Blvd. There is currently a proposal to reverse signal the Express tracks on Queens Blvd. At that point, trains operating express to/from 53 st would use one express track, and trains via 63st the other express track. Service in the reverse peak direction would be all local to at least Continental Ave...
-Hank
The more I read the postings on this subject, the more I am realizing that the MTA is solving one problem by creating another. One reason the 63rd Street Tunnel trains skip Queens Plaza was so that there wouldn't be a massive amount of congestion at that station. However, imagine what's going to happen with Roosevelt Avenue now. It is the next transfer point between local and express after Queens Plaza. With all the riders transfering back and forth at this already busy station, it will be total chaos. I think the wise thing that the MTA should do is to make 36th Street or Steinway into an express stop, thus relieving the overcrowding that would occur at Roosevelt Ave. as well as relieving the need to build another section onto Queens Plaza. I haven't looked at the track layouts so I have no idea how feasable this is, but I think it's the best idea in light of the circumstances.
I don't see how this will add congestion to Roosevelt Avenue. People who live east ["north" in TA parlance] of Roosevelt will transfer from local to express Manhattan-bound already, to avoid having to ride local from Roosevelt-Queens Plaza. Riders getting on at local stations west ["south"] of Roosevelt Ave. are very unlikely to ride in the opposite direction to get a Manhattan-Bound express; they can transfer to the 53rd Street expresses at Queens Plaza.
I think if you look at the current configuration of 36th and Steinway stations you'll see that there is no easy way to make them express stops. Anyway, the construction plans (and funding) for this line have been set for years, and a "mid-course correction" is highly unlikely! The TA will work towards a "software" (e.g. lines configuration) solution instead of a new "hardware" (e.g. new or reconfigured station) solution.
It's just that every time I've been at Roosevelt Ave., the place is a madhouse with people dashing from local to express trains and vice versa. If you stand on the platform when both express and local trains are in the station you will probably get knocked down. I can't see how adding more express trains won't add to this already chaotic scene. Everyone getting on at 67th Avenue, 63rd Drive, Woodhaven Blvd., Grand Ave., and Elmhurst Ave., which aren't express stops, will transfer for an express train at Roosevelt which is the next express stop after these local stops. Currently, if the riders want to take a train down the Broadway line, they will stay on the R and not switch to the E or F. However, if there is now a Broadway express train, these people who would stay on the R train now get off and switch, increasing the number of people transferring at Roosevelt. The same situation holds for people going back home who want to go to the five above-mentioned stations.
Adam,
I didn't think there'd be a Broadway express on this line. where did you pull that one out of?
By my reckoning, you have the E (8th ave Local), F (6th Ave. Local), V (6th Ave. local via 63rd St), the R (Broadway Local via 60th St.). Are they going to add in yet another line? it would only be short term anyway, since everyone knows that the Broadway express is destined to go up the soon to be built 2nd Ave. Subway ;-)
Andy
You're right: the Broadway express tracks are designed and configured to turn north to 2nd Ave. past the Lexington Ave. station. There was a posting a few months ago about completion of the 2nd Ave. line, or at least the section north of 63rd St. Any idea on when construction would resume? Would it be put off until the Queens connector is completed?
2nd ave may eventually be built, if MTA ever decides to chase the funding for it. It will, inevitably, be built, if the increase in ridership they expect will provide the additional funding nessecary, or the proper request for increased federal funds, or capital expentiture in the next 5 year plan...
-Hank
If OPTO is good enough for 4 car trains on the G, why not 4-5 car OPTO trains on all lines during off-peak hours? After rush hour, uncouple subway trains in teh middle. Rather then eight to ten car trains with two workers each , run twice as many four to five cars trains with one worker each. Same workers, same number of cars, same maintenance, electricity, tower operators, stations and maintenence of way -- twice the service and half the headways. As the next rush hour approaches, hitch the half-trains back together and run them with a conductor. Headways could be one train every four to five minutes, and express service could be provided on many lines (ie. the Q) during all but the late night hours. Frequent service could also be provided during weekends.
Yes, there would be an increase in cost. Some workers now paid as conductors would have to be paid as train operators, even though they worked as conductors during the rush hour. Someone would have to uncouple and recouple the trains, and check them for safety. Without conductors, the TA might want to place workers on the platforms of key transfer stations to ensure safety. Still, consider the gains.
How hard is it to uncouple and recouple the trains? If it is too difficult to manage in a safe way, perhaps new couplers could be designed and placed in the middle link of the trains.
Other than crowding and delays on peak, there is no worse aspect of service than the infrequent headways and long waits off peak. Why not cut them down?
With regard to new serivce patterns, if the proposal to make the F local from Queens Plaza to 179th St. goes through, and the V becomes a "super-express" from the 63rd St. tunnel to 179th st., G riders will have one transfer to and E for express service or an F for local. To get to Manhattan on the Broadway line will require two transfers. Hwoever, all the stops on this line are within 6 short blocks or 1/2 a long block of the 6th and 8th Avenue lines which can be accessed by the E and F locals. That is not a long walk by any measure.
In any case, it is impossible to open the 63rd St. tunnel connection and also keep the G running along Queen's Blvd. There is not enough track space.
Andy Byler
Dear l-man,
Your words are the most overblown I've ever seen "crime" and "rights" etc. Nothig in the New York State Constitution, the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Charta, or the Code of Hammurabai guarantees you anything of the sort.
Nor do I know of any law which guarantees equal access to mass transit. Sorry buddy, but you simply can't have a subway and bus running down every street going to every destination so that no one has to transfer.
With mass transit it is inevitable that you cannot necessrily get from where you are to where you want to go without transferring - just like the hub and spoke airline routing.
In any case, you are dealing with impractical desires rather than practical reality. I am a railway civil engineer by profession, so I know what I talk about, and I am certainly an advocate of what I practice. First, no money has been budgeted for now for projects such as you would like. Second, the 63rd St. changes will benefit more people than they inconvenience. Third, although it'd be nice to have a lower lever to Queen's Plaza (perhaps it could then be connected to the Astoria el and extended to LaGuardia), its not going to happen any time soon. You'd better get use to walking the few hundred feet between 6th or 8th Aves. and Broadway if you don't want to transfer twice (not three times like you are complaining about - once to an E or F and once to the R). Your not suffering anymore by doing this than those of us with East Side destinations who must make the trudge from Park and Lexington Aves. to 1st and 2nd Aves.
Andy Byler
Well, if yhou had any guts my friend, you'd complain vociferiously to those in power about the second avenue line. Hey chief, its your tax dollars too. If you choose to piss them away, that's your business. However, no city has the right to favor one neighborhood over another in mass-transit, schools, etc. That's why it seems so stupid that 63rd street would be finished ahead of your line. Also, my friend, explain to me how the 63rd street extension will benefit people. It will increase crowding and congestion to unbelieveable levels. Go ahead and turn a blind eye if you want.
It's already unbelieveable. The idea is to reduce the crowding by increasing the number of trains that can be routed to the most frequent destination, which in this case in Manhattan. The UMTA web site has some of the study material used to get the funding for the 63st tunnel.
-Hank
Hank:
you are right.
Here's what several people I have talked to have said:
1) 74th/Roosevelt will be a nightmare - it will be the only "central" transfer point for all the locals and expresses. Also, don't forget the 7 has a transfer their too. The congestion will be unimaginable.
2) If you thought getting on at Queens Plaza is tough, try getting on a train at 23/Ely. That will make things much worse for G riders.
3) As an alternative, there should be some sort of transfer built to the 7 from the G, but the brain surgeons at the MTA have left that one out.
And, the people that really, honestly, truly do need a new line – those who live on the upper east side, are still without a subway line.
Mayor G should stop wasting his (and our) time (to to mention money) on crossing guards. Here is a good way to improving quality of life in the city - by making transit better.
At the risk of getting everyone mad at me, let me say something inflamatory to each side. 1)Lets not forget that the G is an existing line, not a dream like the Second Avenue. As such, it shouldn't be crippled in the way they are proposing. What will they do next, build a walkway from Fulton St. to Lafayette Ave and discontinue service to Hoyt-Schermerhorn? 2)Having said this, I must confess that I never understood why they built the G in the first place. When I first learned of it, seeing lots of schoolmates head north after class, and looking at a subway map, I could hardly believe where it ran! Sure, it allowed them to get home to Queens without doubling back through Manhattan, but to build a subway just to facilitate this move could not have been cost effective. Now that I have read about the never-built second IND system, and seen maps, I believecan see that it had a part to play in that overall scheme. I note that completion of the line was held up south of Nassau Ave. for a number of years, which coincide with the years during which the second system was dropped. Perhaps someone with access to Newspaper, or other records, could find some reference to second thoughts about completing the G in the mid 30's.
The Crosstown line provides two services: 1) a replacement subway for the elevated Myrtle Avenue line (it is about 2/5 mile from Myrtle Avenue from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Bedford-Nostrand Stations, and 2) service along the Brooklyn side of the East River which used to have only stations at Broadway and at N. 7th St. While they could have had the Crosstown line curve west into Manhattan around Queens Plaza, and/or curve north at Hoyt-Schermerhorn into Manhattan, they chose not to (because of extra congestion and light usage), but rather to allow a transfer at those two connection stations. It may not be perfect, but northwestern Brooklyn sure got a lot of stations with that Crosstown Line, and it's more than is available in Queens from 179th-263rd St. or south of Jamaica Avenue anywhere in Queens, or for that matter the entire area around Utica Avenue in southern Brooklyn, or even the areas in Manhattan around York or East End Ave. and E 86th St. or Avenue C and E. 10 St.
You are correct about the G train service - it's not perfect, but it's far better than what many parts of the city have, which is nothing :-) But there is another concern. Parts of Willamsburgh and Greenpoint, which formerly were rather run down, have revived quite a bit in recent years. Relatively easy access to Manhattan has been part of the reason. There are concerns that the cutbacks in G service resulting from the Queensbridge work will make commuting from these areas less convenient, and their revival - which is still precarious - will be stalled or even reversed.
You are correct, sir.
This is what I have been talking about here for a long time.
Mass transit on the G encompasses many working-class neighborhoods, where people work aLL shifts. We already lack choices to get to midtown. Its queens plaza or metropolitan avenue. If, infact, we had the opportunity to switch to the 7 at vernon jackson or hunters point, it would make life easier and remove some congestion from queens plaza.
looking at the map tonight, i thought this could be done:
1) build a new station at Ash street, which is at the start of greenpoint. a lot of the revival is happening there, and there is no mass transit there to get to queens, unless you walk to greenpoint ave (a real hike) or take the B61 six blocks south on manhattan ave.
2) loop the g (above ground) over the newtown creek and using a small portion of the LIRR's LIC terminus to meet with the 7 at Vernon Jackson. Have it go underground, resuming its existing tracks after Van Alst/21st St.
3) Eliminate 21/Van Alst station.
4) Build a new component to Queens Plaza so the G can either terminate there or run on existing tracks to COntinental.
That way, Greenpoint, Williamsburgh and LIC won't suffer as a result of G cutbacks.
I figured the main reason for the G train was to avoid putting people
who don't need to cross the East River onto the already-overcrowded F
train in order to travel between Brooklyn and Queens. Even a few extra
people on that line would be a problem, as the writer who has been trying to board the inbound rush-hour E or F at 23 St.-Ely has found out.
The question is, was the current level of crowding ever anticipated by the
people who designed the IND in the 1930's? If so, the existence of the
G makes sense for that reason alone. If not, it doesn't. And the answer probably is...current usage levels were never anticipatd, so there must
be another reason for the G being built. Right? I'd be curious as to what
percentage of G riders ride through from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Queens Plaza
(or Court Sq. when trains end there), vs. what percentage get on or off at intermediate stops.
Is there any reason a transfer can't be built between the Court Sq. station on the G and the Courthouse Sq. station on the #7? They are basically in the same place. I'm not too familiar with the layout of the streets and the entrances there, but if a transfer from the 7 could be built to the passageway that now connects Court Sq. (G) and 23 St.-Ely Av. (E,F) stations, that would be ideal. The additional transfer options for E,F and #7 passengers would alleviate some of the overcrowding at Roosevelt Ave. that has been discussed, and the access to/from the Grand Central area would surely be beneficial for G riders too. Is this feasible? Even if the physical layout would require the #7 transfer to be to be at the other end of Court Sq. station from the E,F transfer, it would be worth doing, though perhaps not as much so.
Finally, why does the G train terminate at Smith/9th St. in Brooklyn? I think the original plan was that it would run to Church Ave. as a local, with the train from Manhattan (the F) running express. If the F ran express to Church Ave. all times except late nights, it would speed up that line considerably, and there wouldn't really be a need to run local/express F service on the Culver line south of that point, as some people have been discussing on another thread here. It seems a shame for a perfectly good 4-track express line to have local-only service. It is necessary now on the N/R line in Manhattan, and I guess even on the other end of the F line, between Kew Gardens and 179 St.-Jamaica. It surely isn't necessary for the F to be the sole service on a 4-track line on both the Brooklyn and Queens portions of its run!
One of the reasons is that local riders don't want only the G. because they want a one seat ride into Manhattan. My idea, for future phases of Manhattan Bridge work (in all of which, the Q goes back to Bway), is to start the V, from 21st to Church. (It is planned to go all the way to Coney Island if the bridge is fully closed, but in the plan I saw, both F and V would be local.)
The office building, under which the E/F and G stations and their connection lie, has a grey-brick rear extention with a loading dock on 21st St., next to the 7 station. I always wondered if the space in the building above the dock could be used for a connection. All you woulf have to do is knock out a section of wall, and build a short overpass to the elevated Queensbound platform.
Also, noteworthy, in the IND second system, there were many planned crosstown routes through Brooklyn. The G was just the only one that was completed. Then also, there was the BMT's idea of extending the Franklin shuttle to Queens Plaza.
Do you have more info on the Franklin Shuttle to Queens Extension?I am sure
that all sub talkers want this info? What stops? what route?
This was an old 1920's BMT plan. I think it was briefly mentioned either in Uptown Downtown or one of the other books. I'm not sure of the exact route or stations, but do know it there was some provision for it on the south side of the Queensboro Plaza complex, I think east of the station (where it was to have come in from)
The IND was built to be expanded and expanded. One only has to read about the lines planned in the Phase 2 part and imagine what service would have been like if they had all been built; not to mention the development of Queens and Brooklyn as a result. One Phase 2 line which is not mentioned, but apparently planned, was a branch which would have continued along Lafayette Ave. to at least Broadway, possibly a replacement for the Lexington Ave. el. It would have started at Bedford-Nostrand Aves. where an unused center track is still in place.
Another web site operator( http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/south4.htm )Has posted three sketch maps that he has in his posession that depict early proposals for connections in the S4th st. Hub area. One shows the stub from Bedford Nostrand running up Lafayette and connecting to a line from S4th up Bushwick and Myrtle using Stanhope St. The Myrtle ave line eventually hooks up to the LIRR Ridgewood Line.
One of the reasons that the G was built was to provide a direct route between Queens and Brooklyn, and that there was demand for such service. I don't know what level of usage was anticipated for the G used as a "through route" between those boroughs (as opposed to use as a "stub line" to transfer to Manhattan-bound service). But I am reasonably confident that part of the impetus was to sell the residents of Brooklyn and Queens on the idea of spending public money on an IND system -- they would be getting crosstown service in return for not opposing the cost of construction in Manhattan & the Bronx.
The reason that the G. terminates where it does in Brooklyn is lack of ridership. Relatively few people want to go from Queens Blvd. to Prospect Park. As a result, many people would simply transfer off the G before it departs for Fort Greene & parts north. That created congestion at the transfer points and it absorbed track space on the F line (or whatever it was at the time). Precisely the problem it has now in Queens, I'm afraid.
--mhg
Again, you are incredibly wrong about the traffic patterns on the G line. I suggest you do a field trip and ride on the line at different hours of the day and night.
Oh, one other thing, before I forget...
The R carries less riders mid day than the G or anyone else. Excess capacity is NOT absorbed by the F.
Instead, service has been made much worse.
I suggest that before you talk, you know what you are talking about!!!!!
I'm not sure what you're responding to, exactly. Whether or not I have ridden the G at different times of night or day, the TA cut back on service in Brooklyn because of low ridership on certain segments of the line, and it plans to do so in Queens for the same reason, regardless of the fact that the trains are crowded as they approach transfers into and out of Manhattan, AM/PM. The TA's point is that the track space would be better used to get people into and out of Manhattan, rather than across town. That's it. You are welcome to disagree. I stand by my earlier statement that there is too low a demand for a direct connection between, say, Grand Ave. in Queens and Ave. P in Brooklyn to justify the kind of service that you advocate.
As to whether the R. has lower ridership miday, I don't think anyone here has discussed the R train specificially or mentioned mid-day service as opposed to any other time of day. If your point is that there should be more G service because the R is less popular, or that the R. should terminate instead of the G (or something along those lines), you'd have to build an argument based on 1) the number of trains on the R line and the ridership patterns, rather than the number of people using it at any specific point in time or place; 2) where these trains go and where the passangers who start of the trains end up going; 3) where the low midday use is (Herald Square v. Classon Ave?; 4) Why the R has low ridership on whatever portion you are referring to and whether that situation will change when all the construction is over and/or Broadway express service is restablished; 4) etc. Simply saying that the G is crowded isn't enough.
Again, let me say how wrong you are. The G has steady ridership all during the day. The people who live along the line work around the clock, (unlike those say in queens residential neighborhoods). For example, take Greenpoint. Greenpoint is home to laborers: asbestos removers, hotel workers, cleaners. They work all three shifts. Now get on the E that time of the night. There are less people on that train than the G.
I'm not advocating Lex line-type service. I'm saying we deserve better service. Understand? B-E-T-T-E-R service. Also, the cutbacks have affected the economic rebirth of Greenpoint and Williamsburgh. As a resident, I am unwilling to give back those gains to the city.
It seems to me that there are more vital projects (read: the S-E-C-O-N-D A-V-E. L-I-N-E) (read: R-U-T-G-E-R-S S-T. T-U-N-N-E-L) (Q-U-E-E-N-S S-U-P-E-R E-X-P-R-E-S-S) ect, than a 63rd Street connection, which really does nothing, execpt worsen crowding.
You can't tell me that somehow, somewhere, someone was bought off.
One thing about Mass Transit is you have to have a mass, and the only mass capable of attracting enough riders to make heavy rail affordable is in Manhattan. The G attracts few riders because it doesn't go to Manhattan.
What if the G were also connected to the 63rd St tunnel (or the 60th), and to the Montigue Tunnel (or the Rutgers)? What if it ran as a local loop on the 6t or 7th Avenue lines? Then its ridership would soar -- and ridership on the J?Z would probably drop.
Many connections are justified. From 1990 to 1996, 600,000 people moved out of New York City. That, and the older people who are dying off, are those with political influence. The future is not a priority for such people.
Just remember L-man, in 1990 70 percent of city residents over age 65 were native born white, and 70 percent of those under age 20 were not. Transportation investements which will pay off in ten years, or which will head off a disaster which will not occur for ten years, are not a priority for those who count. Neither is education. And why do we have so much debt, and the nation's second lowest credit rating? Sound cynical? I've become cynical by knowing too many facts.
There is capitalism, under which you get what you earn, at least in theory. As an economist, I see the point of that -- people need an incentive. There is socialism, under which you get what you need, at least in theory. As a Christian, I see the point of that. Over time, however, both capitalism and socialism have a tendency to degenerate into feudalism, under which those who have it get more, whether they need it or not, whether they earn it or not. When you have a political elite protected by perpetual incumbency, as in New York, narrow unearned privileges accumuate and drain the rest of us. Thank God for term limits -- wish we had them at the state level as well.
Your statement is unclear. It sounds as if you are saying that the people who moved from New York City and the people who are dead or dying are the ones with political influence. Surely you don't mean that. Are you trying to say that the future is not a priority for those who are left in Manhattan? Who do you feel has political influence?
lowest credit rating? Sound cynical? I've become cynical by knowing too many facts.>
Once again, this is unclear. Who are the people who count? Which group does not value education? And what is you conclusion on the cause of debt? Are you saying that the values of non-white under age 20 and the whites over age 65 somehow contributed to the debt? How?
Again, you fail to understand what I am talking about.
There IS a mass. Travel on the G late at night and you'll see it carries more passengers than many other lines.
Your theory about having to run into the city is bunk. If it were connected to the J, M, Z, if the second system was ever built, etc. the ridership would be even greater.
Let's get the facts right.
1) More babble about "rights." Throw in some rhetoric about "tax dollars" and and a few well turned folksy phrases ("Hey Chief" "piss away") and you're a regular Paul Harvey. Too bad neither of you say much. But, I'll bite. Please, tell me: how are cities supposed to act so that they don't "favor one neighborhood over another in mass-transit, schools, etc."? Does that statement actually mean anything (aside from the fact that it's not a correct statement of a municipality's legal responsibilities).
2) My gut instinct tells me that increasing capacity in Queens will reduce congestion, rather than increase it. Call me crazy, but it's hard to see why it would be otherwise. Even if everyone has to transfer at a single station, extra trains means more room for passengers. It means less wait to get on a train. What are the rest of us missing that you and the people you talk to know?
3) If I had to choose an extra 10 trains per rush hour through Queens or to have you walk from the northbound G, I'd rather see you walk. I'll bet those extra 10 trains carry more people than the crosstown portion of the G carries in an entire day.
4) Believe me, the people in E. Queens have been complaining long and loud about inadequate service for years and years and years.
If you have any coherent, sensible thoughts, I'd love to read them? Maybe, if you're really upset after reading this, you should wait a minute before typing anything.
--mhg
Well Mark,
Its a shame you don't live in my neighborhood. Perhaps then you'll see what complaining is all about.
Firstly, consider the math. More trains mean more delays means more probability of a breakdowns, means more congestion. Don't see that point? I offer the Lex Avenue Line as a case in point.
Secondly, what hurt Brooklyn more than any other events the past 50 years (I mean so from an economic point of view). Was it the Dodgers moving west? Uh, uh. It was the tearing down of many subways, which hurt the economic development of the borough.
Thirdly, service on the G is without a doubt, the worst in the city. Trains are busy all times of the day or night. If you don't believe it, ride the trains with me when I travel (midnight) to get to work. And don't forget the G services many schools. Trains are packed with students.
Fourthly, I have a right and a say where my tax dollars are being utilized. I'm sorry, but the MTA has blown it. Instead of utilizing the LIRR LIC-Jamaica connection which is hardly if ever used, it chooses to jam more people psf (per square foot) on to trains, and in the process hurt other neighborhoods economically by reducing service.
The priority should have been the badly needed second ave. line first, then a queens express. Somewhere, someone's pockets are getting lined with money. Might they be yours, sir?
Everything you say in _this_ post is sensible and forthright, even if I disagree with a lot of it.
Except for that last sentence -- about people lining their pockets, and maybe I'm one of them. How could someone's pocket's be lined with money because the G trains are crowded & the second avenue subway isn't built? What sort of scam would actually produce that effect. It's a little hard to envision and it sounds a lot like rhetoric rather than argument (i.e. "if I can't have what I want, someone must be stealing from the public.")
Also, what I was talking about re: excessive rhetoric weakening your arguments -- why would you accuse me (like I'm somehow your "opponant") of stealing money based on a few email posts? What possible basis for that statement could you have? Stupid talk like that makes it more likely that you haven't thought through the rest of what you said. It detracts from your credibility and it shows that it's easy to push your buttons and get you angry. What's the point?
--mhg
The point is, is that when a project like the second avenue line is sorely needed and needed much more than the 63rd street line, one has to question it. You have to figure that the second Avenue line would make people's lives so much easier and improve the quality of life in the city.
As for the 63rd Street line, its needed, but not as much as a second ave line. Its benefits, as discussed here in the postings, would probably pale in comparison to a second ave line. Not only that, but the damage done to riders on the G line (by that I mean the economic structures of those neighborhoods) can never be repaired.
Thus it shows me that someone, somewhere is benefiting from all this, and I don't mean a straphanger.
As for your personal attacks on me, I suggest you vent at a hockey game. Otherwise, stick it where the sun doesn't shine and grow up.
Unfortunately, I have to leave for Florida for a few weeks, so I will miss out on all the fun. I know you'll miss me(yeah, right). But before I leave, let me leave a few points to ponder. I was looking over the city subway map and saw a few places where, if the MTA had the funds, could extend the system. I haven't been to the Bronx in years, so I am unsure if this is necessary, but I saw that it would be feasible to extend the 'A' train into the Bronx, maybe as far as the '1,9' train. and extend the 'A' train in Queens. I don't have my map handy, but I think it is up to an expressway or something, I forget. They should also extens the 'E-F-G-R' a longer way or break the 'G' away from the trunk and upto another street. I forget. Oh, well. My final point is a new type of third rail. Would it be possible to put a third rail in the wall or along the trackbed to stop all this feuding about the precarious positioning of third rails now. Well, that's my shpeil. See you in April!
Well, Alex can't read this but what if they did that with the third rail? I think it is possible and would be a little more convenient and less space consuming.
Then someone would accidentally lean against the wall and electrocute himself. I personally think the current (get it??) ways are at least as good, with the exception of the exposed 3rd rails in Chicago. The others all have something to step on (a wooden platform, a rubber covering), so you would have to get under it to get electrocuted. (What an awful subject...Sorry...)
Actually, I didn't mean along walls that are along platforms. Say for example, the walls along a subway tunnel in the same general location as today's third rails but they are embedded in the wall to prevent anyone from stepping on or leaning on them. In instances with four-track tunnels when all four rails are used, put the third rail either: A-Along the trackbed, though this may not be too much better because a passenger or a tarck worker could be careless and step on it and I don't even have to bring up the situation of trash and even water, in many cases, on the trackbeds or B-make concrete bases, such as along support columns, and put the rails in that. To my knowledge, concrete doesn't carry current so that should be alright. I have a friend who likes to build model railroads and even tried to make a replica of the Times Square shuttle once. I might see if he can try that to see if it is plausible. But currently(I got it) he's trying to do the whole '1/9' line.
I wonder how many accidents actually occur as a result of track workers or unauthorized persons coming in contact with third rails. Does anyone have statistics? I bet not many occur -- even in Boston, which runs uncovered third rail for all of the Red and Orange lines and portions of the Blue line.
I don't think concrete would work for third rail anchoring. It is porous, and imagine it would do a nice job of grounding out as soon as it got wet. It might even ground out when dry -- can anyone verify this?
Also, do any other cities besides NYC weld live third rail? Or do they shut it off?
Concrete is NOT considered an insulator, nor a conductor. I guess that makes it a semi-conductor, but not the usefull kind. Even when dry to the touch, there are free water molecules in "young" concrete, which would pass a trickle of current and lead to damage similar to freeze damage.
Reading the Times today(Metro Section) I read an article about the tracks needing replacement after 8 years in service. Something about experimental track ties, epoxy and sand? Anyone in the know understand what the problem is because the article didn't get to deep into the technical stuff.
The 63rd st. tubes were not Shield Bored like all previous NY Subway River Crossings, they were prefabricated by the Newport News Shipyard, floated up the coast, and sunk into a trench that had been dredged into the river bottom. At that point, they could have installed the track in the same manner as in past tunnels, but someone decided to try something "new". I don't recall the details, but it hasn't worked out well. My memory is that the trackbed has deteriorated in some way not just associated with wear, that the problem showed up before the trains started using the tunnel.
The reason (I believe) the track bed has deterioated is because the tracks were laid in the tunnels w/o the wood beams under the tracks... I think they wanted to see if the wood was needed to lay across the tracks... I guess they miscalculated...
What type of car is being used for the Queensbridge shuttle ?
R-32's
Here in Chicago, we had a little subway accident on Monday, whereby two cars of a Red Line subway train had a partial decoupling, which triggered the emergency brake. The train's sudden stop caused some minor injuries, and southbound (but not northbound) subway service was replaced with shuttle buses for two hours right during the evening rush.
Well, in today's papers, it came out that the two cars that detached were the halves of a "married" pair (all the CTA revenue cars run in married pairs). The CTA spokesman said it was "highly unusual" (direct quote) for a married pair of cars to decouple like that.
Is it?
All cars running as married pairs in New York and Chicago are joined by a drawbar, and while it is possible to separate them, it is not done except in a yard, and then very rarely. I suspect that a drawbar either broke or detached in this particular accident. Speaking of married pairs, R-26, R-27, R-28, and R-30 cars in New York were originally coupled into married pairs using conventional couplers; after being rebuilt, the R-26s and R-28s are now joined by drawbars.
The Sun-Times today says that "a crack in the coupling mechanism" caused the accident, and further stated that the CTA is investigating the cause of the crack.
What is the difference and the signifigance of the types of subway car coupling?
Why are there two different kinds of couplings?
I'm no expert, and defer to those in this group with more knowledge of that question than myself, but I can think of one good reason for "married" pairs of cars (or triplets of cars): instead of a motorman's cab on either end of a car, you need only one per car (or two for every three cars in cases where three cars are linked). This leaves more space for passengers.
On the other hand, if you link together too many cars, then you lose the flexibility of running as few or as many cars as you need for a given train at a given time of day on a given line. Two-car pairs leaves a lot of flexibility (2-4-6-8-10), three-car units not so much (3-6-9), and four is certainly when it stops making sense (4-8).
The CTA makes good use of this flexibility: rather than run only a few trains an hour on a line on the weekend, it runs shorter ones closer together. Believe me, on a station at the edge of town on a Saturday morning, you feel more comfortable with six two-car trains in an hour than, say, two six-car trains!
I was told linkbars are used instead of a standard coupler on married pairs because standard couplers are expensive to maintain and linkbars are not.
Another advantage of married pairs is that they can share certain components. On MTA Redbirds, they share one air compressor and certain electric components. I think it is the batteries. The air compressor is in the odd number car and the batteries are in the even number car.
Why are there different kinds of couplings? (as opposed to "why are there married pairs?").
It's a lot like the clasp of a necklace and the other links -- you run a greater risk that the clasp will come undone but you can take it apart if you want. You don't expect to disassemble the rest of the necklace, so it gets put together more permenantly. Each type of link gets a different coupling depending on its expected use.
--mhg
A "married pair" refers to the fact that neither car (The A car or the B car) has all the parts needed to run by itself. One has the compressor for the brakes and the other electric components.
I also heard-dont remeber where- that there are "Catholic" and "protestant"
cars which refer to the "ease" by which a car can get a new "partner"-a car conencted by standard couplers can easily get a new "partner" and those with link bars are harder.
(Steve- if you read this, "finish" or further explain for us)
--Opinions expressed are my own and not those of MTA or NYCT--
I never heard the comparrison to "Catholic/Protestant" before but of course, you are correct. NTCT had/had both linked & unlinked 'married pairs'. R27/30 had couplers between the A & B cars while R-32 and up were permanently married via a link bar. These are only semi-permanent couplings. You'll see on the R-32 fleet several 'Bastard Pairs', cars mated out of sequence. These are cars which had mates that have been removed from service for extended periods of time so the ok mates have been unlinked and linked to other ok mates.
As for the A & B cars, they refer to R-44 and R-46 only. We refer to the others as odd & even cars. Odd cars have the Air compressor for both cars while the even cars have the converter and batteries. A cars have driving ends with the cmpressor and converter & batteries while B cars have no driving end or compressor or converter.
I wont get into the R-62, R-62A and R-68A links as they will confuse you completely.
Steve-go ahead and confuse me. I visited Metro North's Stamford Mof E shop yesterday and they have triples where one car has the compressor the other the converter adn two have pantographs.(So a converter car could run with a pan)tograph car
Okay, try this out. 4-car link R-68A. Each car has a converter but only the even numbered cars have a 'driving' end'. Here's the kicker. Each 4-car unit has 3 compressors. The compressor is removed from the higher number 'odd car'.
Also, I've mentioned this before but one R-32 linked pair has a car carrying an
R-10 number. One R-32 #3348 began its' life as an odd numbered car but was converted several years ago and was given the 'out of sequence' number. The mate has an R-32 series number.
another interesting thought (from a museum tour):
the odd cars (xxx1, etc.) are "female" are the even numbered cars (xxx2,etc.) are "male"cars.(The guide at the musuem said the reason was "Feamles are odd"
(that was his opinion)
Ouch!
I have never heard the male/female thing before. Although I agree that females are odd (just kidding). But here's another "married pair" bit of trivia. On the LIRR, EVERY pair has the odd car on the westerly end while the even car is always east.
more trivia-if you can take another post on this:
The LIRR also has some "mismatched pairs"(their phrase) derived when one of the pair was "lost" (wrecked, etc.) and they had to get a new mate.
The LIRR shop is neat- Instead of fork lifts it has automated vehiucles that will automatically bring the part to a human who will "tell" the machine where tyo take the part. They also have a 12 story verticalw arehouse for large parts and heer again automation brings you the part!
I've been to Hillside a few times. Beautiful shop, unfortunately, the robots usually don't work. As for mis-matched pairs, we refer to them as Bastards. Incidently, besides the LIRR president, the CMO and one of the ACMOs at the LIRR are ex-TA.
Here in New York City, as you might or might not know, the Subway goes
from single cars to a five (5) car unit-train (the yet undelivered
R146 cars). A "unit-train" is the term the frieght railroads use for
cars that should not be uncoupled. New Jersey Transit, the Long Island
Railroad and the Metro North Railroad use 2 or 3 car unit trains.
In most cases, the rapid transit style coupler is replaced with something
that simply allows the cars to be bolted together. Instead of having
air, electrical and control services transfered via the rapid transit
style coupler, they are transferred via a festoon of cables and hoses
hanging between the cars.
Your press reports present an inigma, however. You say there was a
partial decoupling of married pair cars. What is a partial decoupling?
How does this apply to cars that are bolted together? If a rapid-transit
coupler partially decoupled, an emergency stop would be issued due to the
control loop circuit being interupted. If a semi-permanent couple comes
loose, the cars would have to separate far enough apart to pull out the
control cables and issue the emergency stop. I dont call this partial.
That it, unless CTA has some kind of instrumentation on thier couplers.
I don't know if this helps you, but it may certainly spark some discussion.
(And, it is possible I may not have all my facts properly coupled.)
Please reply via email to centolanzi@aol.com (and this thread, if
possible.)
Patrick
The R-62s on the 4 line currently run in 5-car units.
The report was a tiny 2" x 2" article in the middle of the paper, and was addressed more to the injuries and the disruption of service. It was no more specific than to say that there was a partial decoupling due to a possible crack in the coupling, and when the cars started to move apart, the automatic brakes applied. (This sounds like your second alternative -- the cables pulling out.) The article a few days later was basically a repeat, except to add that the cars were a married pair and that the crack would be investigated (i.e.: what caused the crack, how did the pair go out into service with a crack unnoticed).
'Does anyone have up to date Rosters
thank you
Fleet numbers
Mfgr
Dates'
Model Numbers
What and where is the Bee Line? Not that I can provide any info, but it would be nice to know what the topic is...
Bee-Line is the name of the local buses in Westchester County. They are the same people that operate Liberty Lines Express buses. Liberty Lines/Bee-Line is based in Yonkers. Several Bee-Line routes operate into the Bronx and feed the all of the subway lines in the Bronx. One Bee-Line route operates from White Plains & Tarrytown, NY to Midtown along with other Liberty Lines routes. This route is designated the BXM4C & D. The regular Liberty Lines buses cannot be used on this route because it doesn't provide service within New York City. Likewise Bee-Line express buses cannot be used on other Liberty routes. The Bee Line express buses can be spotted in Manhattan along 5th and Madison Aves - they are MCI over the road type coaches and they have a blue and mustard stripe with the Bee Line logo.
I have a recent one at home. I"ll send it to you.
Today, after I used my regular full-fare Metrocard, I was stopped by a cop who asked if I had just used a student pass. I noticed he asked another person who obviously not a student. He then asked me for my card and had it checked out with the token booth. It was valid and he apoligized for the inconvienence and I was on my way. I read here in Subtalk a while back that different lights light up for different types of cards. Has anyone here experienced the same problem? Is it possible for the display on the turnstile to read "Fullfare-GO" while the indicators light up "student". This was no big deal, the cop was nice about, but I hope not to have this problem again. The cop even indicated it may be a turnstile problem. This happened at the 23rd Street station-#6 line-northbound side.
red light is for a regular metrocard and reduce fare metrocard.senior citizen or disable.green light is a transit employee and transit bureau cops.student cards would also show a red light.
The new subway map is awful!!! The colors are muddy, it's impossible to
figure just where the transfer points are and, most of all, the script
is so tiny that you need a magnifying glass to read it. Forget about
trying to read it on the subway while somebody is sitting underneath it.
It's classic 90's! I can just picture: some department in the MTA hears
a rumour that their going to be axed - "quick - come up with a project
that costs lots of money - once somebody signs for it, there's no going
back!".
What was wrong with the map we had for over 20 years?
Like I'm going to start wondering where to transfer to the bus when I'm
already on my way there!! "Hmmm, I have no idea where to find my bus.
Why don't I just get out my reading glasses and disturb my fellow subway
passenger?"
Not only are the new maps awful but they have far too many errors. The sad part is that the MTA paid $200,000.00 for the new maps and even after realizing that they were full of errors, opted to install them.
1 hour per car X 5,900 cars X $22.00 per hour = BIG WASTE OF OUR MONEY
What kind of errors are there? I know there was a big error which was corrected before publication but I've never heard of any others.
Well, as of March 1, the B and C are switching terminals, and that's not reflected on the map. Also, they don't show many of the major connections, such as connections to several bus routes at 231st and B'way. Additionally, on 3/1, there are several bus service changes going into effect, most notably moving the s53 to 86st. The connection for the s53 isn't even on the map. This just follows on the heels of the DOT's sign debacle. Another sign I saw recently, southbound on Victory Blvd@ Forest Ave, has all the buses going to the Ferry. At this point, buses are LEAVING the ferry! Also, they're not consistant in how they mark the destinations on the sign. Some signs for Buses to the Mall are labeled 'SI Mall', and some are labeled 'Yukon' Yukon is the depot that most of the bus routes on SI operate out of, But how many people actually know the name of the depot? How many of the occasional and first-time travelers will know where the hell they're going?
-Hank
Well the TA spent $200,000 on the new (incorrect) maps and another $100,000 to install them. Starting monday they will cause mass confusion but alas here's the good news. Beginning in April they will become the OLD MAPS. The TA will spend another $200,000 for new maps and another $100,000 to install them.
With luck, instead of being MTA "The Map" everything-south-of-Poughkeepsie maps, they will be plain old easy-to understand, nicely detailed NYCT "SUBWAY" maps.
Hmmm... I haven't seen the new maps yet.... but...
in response to the second part of your post...
isn't that the entire POINT of having a map in a subway car?
I think the new map is just fine, and in fact I find it easier to read than the old one. Obviously, as with any new effort, there will be errors. I also think it's a darn good idea to show bus connections and the commuter rail map on the back. In fact, they might be saving money in the long run since they should no longer have to print individual Metro-North or LIRR maps. And yes, people frequently must reference a map while on the train or bus. Please keep in mind that not everyone in the city has the system committed to memory like posters to this board. Also, many folks ride when the train isn't cheek-to-jowl packed with passengers! (i.e., out-of-towners, who appreciate a good map more than most)
Finally, a good, free subway map is a wonderful thing to have! Once again, New Yorkers have proven to me that they do not realize how good they've got it! Please visit Philadelphia more often and try and obtain a SEPTA map if you doubt me.
But the map that has been in use since 1979 was just fine. In fact, the usual version had individual route strip maps on the back, and EVERY bus connection was listed next to each stop. It was a little hard to follow if you were looking for subway transfers, but it even listed Nassau and Westchester buses.
-Hank
Here's a problem: This "The Map" was just issued, and (at least as of 10 days ago when I was last in NYC) they were still in the process of installing them in cars and in stations.
In just four days, the [B] and [C] swap terminals, and all of these maps will be out-of-date. HELLO?
This is not the first edition of the MTA all-rail map. The first one was issued about 2 years ago and you could get it by writing to the MTA and you would get one. Of course, at that time the regular NYCT "SUBWAY" map was given out at station.
I'm hoping against hope that NYCT will assert itself and continue to put out the "SUBWAY" map and tell MTA that their all-inclusive map is good as an adjunct but not as the "Bible" of subway service. It seems that the NYCT map is easily updated on their computers, printed on thin paper and and very easy to understand (comparatively). The MTA is thick, has 3 sets of lines and is not easy to read to understand all the subtle details of service on any of the lines. Let us hope they will be rational and print both types of map once again.
AT THIS TIME ARE THERE STILL HOMELESS LIVING DEEP IN THE SUBWAY TUNNELS AND ABANDONED STATIONS?
When we went on a tour of an unused station on the 2nd Avenue line (I forgot which one, but it was behind another station that had round walls), we found evidence of homeless people living there. The tour guide said he had no idea how they got in.
>When we went on a tour of an unused station on the 2nd Avenue line (I forgot >which one, but it was behind another
>station that had round walls), we found evidence of homeless people living >there. The tour guide said he had no idea how
>they got in.
Are you sure you don't mean the Second Avenue station on the F line? There is a stub tunnel extending about a train's-length past that station (part of the abortive IND Second System of the 1930s) that had attracted a lot of skells. I heard a story, dunno whether it's true or not, that it was possible to smell their feces from the station platforms. The stub has recently been walled off, hopefully putting an end to this situation.
It more than likely was the walled-off section of tunnel past the 2nd Ave. station on the F. None of the segments of the 2nd Ave line which were completed included stations.
IN THE BOOK THE MOLE PEOPLE, THERE WERE ESTIMATES OF 5000+ HOMELESS LIVING UNDERGROUND. SOME AS DEEP AS 7 LEVELS BELOW GRAND CENTRAL STATION. WOULD
ANYONE BE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING THE DEEPEST DEPTHS OF THE NY SUBWAY
SYSTEM? HAVE ANY OF YOU ATTEMPTED IT? I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE STOMACH FOR IT, BUT I AM REALLY THINKING ABOUT DOING IT.
I would be really interested in exploring the deepest, grungiest, most hidden parts of the subway but I think it's dangerous. I would only go with a large number of people including a MTA employee and a police officer to ward off any vagrants whose space we would probably invade.
ADAM, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WOULD BE VERY CREPPY GOING DOWN THERE.
I AM A 5TH DEGREE BLACK BELT AND I WOULD STILL BE SPOOKED GOING DOWN THERE WITHOUT EXPERIENCED BACK UP. BUT I AM VERY INTRIGUED WITH DETAILING SOME
OF THE DEEPEST, BUT STILL ACCESIBLE TUNNELS OF THE SYSTEM. WHAT THE HELL
A YOUNG GIRL DID IT, AND THAT TOOK BIG BALLS! [SHE WROTE THE MOLE PEOPLE]
I WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT A FEW GUYS COULD CHANCE IT.
Please see Dave's site www.nycsubway.org and find the disused stations page from Joe Brennan. He discusses the bookk " The Mole People" and specifically addresses this and other "urban legends" He says that there is no "7 levels deep" at Grand Central. ALso listed as a myth is the West Side Tunnel.
I'm sure what you are suggesting would be interesting, especially to sociology students (and train buffs but I have 3 problems with your suggestion.
First - The alleged 7 levels of Grand Central (i'm skeptical) are not part of the NY Subway system
Second - The 'underground dwellers' are by definition, anti-social. I doubt that they would look kindly on being treated as museum exhibits or would be hospitable if you invaded their space.
Third - The NYCT is not a museum. What you are suggesting is illegal and dangerous.
On a personal note: I've been in some of the places where the homeless are 'living'. The fact that I was there in the performance of my duties not withstanding, It's not pretty. Odors from rotting food and human waste permeate the tunnels. Lighting, electrical fixtures and plumbing have been stripped and sold for scrap. What remains is decidedly dangerous. Used hypodermic needles and broken crack vials are everywhere. The objects of your curiosity do not like visitors either. They are hostile, fiercely protective of 'their turf', and potentially dangerous.
I remember that one of the weekly TV news magazines did a special about the underground dwellers. I suggest that you try to catch it on re-runs instead.
>None of
>the segments of the 2nd Ave line which were completed included stations.
This is NOT a correct statement, as I was in one of the stations on the 2nd Avenue line that was never completed. Yes, the station is in raw form but it IS a station. We explored the entire station, including a labyrinth of rooms and corridors in part of the station and it was in one of these corridors where we found evidence of someone living there.
Sadly t'is true. Back in the early 80s, before the current wall was errected, I wa called in to install Caulley Wheels (dummy wheels not used any more) on a disabled train in the 'hole' south of the station. The stentch of rotting food and human waste was so strong, we all became ill. The disabled train had to be dragged back into the station where we did the work, working under the platform. Every time I ride the F train through the area, I can remember the stentch and actually hold my breath as we pass.
Has any one ever seen or heard of carpet on NYCTA subway cars.
Yes, a set of R44s back in the early 70s was furnished with carpeting. There are pictures still extant of the cars. I am sure someone else here can furnish more details.
Also, the prototype subway cars on which the R-44 and R-46 were based, the SOAC car as it was called, also had carpeting.
--Mark
During the early 70's, I rode the carpeted R-44 cars on the D train. I think the carpeting was removed because they couldn't keep it clean. I remember after awhile, the carpet started to smell real bad.
If you ask me, carpeting on a subway train just doesn't make sense, both from an economical and sensible standpoint. It would be next to impossible to keep it clean, and it probably wouldn't last very long, given the traffic volume in New York.
JUST THE DESCRIPTIONS AND PHOTOGRAPHS
OF THE FILTH THAT WOULD ACCUMULATE ON THESE
CARPETS WOULD BE WORTHY OF IT'S OWN WEBSITE AND NEWSLETTER!
Does the LIRR on MNRR have carpeting in any of its cars?
Don't the M1's, M3's, etc., have some carpeting going from side door to side door, thus each car having 2 strips of carpet?
Only a few test cars (to prevent slipping in wet conditions).
The old diesel cars on the LIRR's Port Jefferson, Patchogue/Montauk, Oyster Bay, and Greenport lines which run during rush hours have carpeting on the walls but not on the floors. The shuttle trains which run off-peak (I am sorry, but I do not know the different model numbers) do not have any carpeting what-so-ever. The cars with the carpeting on the walls appear to be older, but they are nicer to travel in since the light in the carpeted cars is softer than the light in the cars with the white plastic walls. The lighting is softer in the carpeted trains because the carpets are deep red and have a softening effect. (Please note that I am not a physicist or light refraction expert. Please keep this in mind if you find that my observation does not make any sense from a scientific standpoint. This is only my observation.) Personally, I like these old cars and will be sad when the LIRR replaces them in the next couple of years.
The only rapid transit system I'm aware of that uses carpeting in all its cars is BART--a sort of hybrid system providing what is essentially a suburban train service with rapid transit technology. The carpeting is a mixed blessing--it looks nice for about the first five minutes out of the shops, but it's almost impossible to keep it clean under real-world service conditions. The original dijon-mustard color carpeting was enough of a cleaning problem, but in the latest series of cars, and refurbishments of the older ones, they've gone to a light blue!
Our Nation's Capital's Metro system has carpeting, and it still looks okay after 20 years, not beautiful but not threadbare or really disgusting looking either.
Ditto for BART in San Francisco
Folks‹
So far, we have the following systems with carpets on their trains:
--BART in San Francisco
--the Washington Metro
To that, we can add MARTA in Atlanta. And I also think one of the Canadian systems has carpeted trains...
Michael
Why have carpeted trains? Not to be pessimistic, but I don't think it would work on the New York system or Philadelphia(here, we can't even keep the windows graffiti free, but there's no spray paint-go figure!). I know it makes that long ride on the metro seem a little more homey, but how could a carpet survive on BART! That was a shock to me!
Carpet on BART gets quite grungy. And because its there, no food or drink in system--not even lattes. The theory was and is BART says its not a sunway, its a LIRR analog. With stations three blocks apart in downtown SF that's a stretch, but the outer ends are far out in the whiter straighter burbs.
Yes, but if the idea for BART is that it's more commuter rail than subway, food and drink would be allowed. Here in Illinois, under state law, food and drink is not supposed to be consumed on public buses or rapid transit trains, but is expressly allowed on commuter trains. I say "not supposed to" because the law forbids eating or drinking on rapid transit trains, but nobody ever enforces the law as long as you don't throw garbage on the floor.
Carpet on the trains in DC though not bad is never clean. A somewhat soiled transit floor in Chicago or NYC looks better that a somewhat soiled carpet in DC
The impression of the system is made up of many things. The stations in DC may be newer but overall I get the feel that the NYC subway is cleaner mostly because the cars look better inside.
MARTA has carpet and it is(was) beige-brown and is now a muck of sticky mess. Some NJT cars-I think the Arrow II cars- had carpet and it became a black mess. A rail car with carpet simply does not work.
(Yes, I am a NYCT employee)
--opinions expressed are my own and not those of NYCT or MTA---
R44's 328-335 tested carpeting starting in 1972. It turned out to be a cleaning and maintenance nightmare, and was removed in 1974 or 1975.
I may have missed an explanation of why the message index format changed, but the old one was superior. It is now nearly impossible to follow a topic "thread". With the old way, they were grouped together. Now, seeing all these "Re:" messages separated means you have to scroll down (if you have the patience) to try and find the beginning of the topic.
Can't the old format be brought back? It's only deficiency was that it only showed, at the bottom of a message, those follow-up messages that were indented. If it could show all messages on the topic, that would be a nice improvement. But to gut the approach totally, and leave only disconnected messages on a topic makes the index much worse. I hope it can be brought back to the original state, if not improved. But please don't leave it as it is.
Thanks.
Mike Rothenberg
The chronological posting is just the default position. You can click on "Search/Change Display Mode" and change the display of the postings to threaded or reverse threaded (reverse being the way it was done on the old system).
I think this will only work if you use a browser that supports cookies.
I am trying to figure out which set of train tracks are at 174th Street and the Bronx River Parkway. I'm only interested in non-subway trackage.
I know that the MNCRR New Haven Line parallels the Bronx River Parkway for some distance in the Bronx, and I believe that the _only_ tracks in the area of 174th Street are those tracks. But I need to be certain. Can anyone confirm that the New Haven line is in this area? Also, can anyone tell me if there are any _other_ tracks in the immediate area of 174th St. & the BRP, e.g. a railyard?
Thanks in advance!
The New Haven as well as the Harlem line does parallel the Bx River Pkway, but that's only from about Mosholu Pkway and north to the Westchester County line that you can see the trains. The tracks near 174th street are Amtrak's
Do not confuse the tracks of the NYNH&H Shorline tracks east of West Farms Square with the NYC Harlem Div tracks that are on Park Ave and north of Fordham Rd the parallel Webster Ave.
To give a direct answer: the tracks you are seeing are what is now the
Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) line, and what was formerly known as the
Harlem River line of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. The
tracks run from Penn Station, through Sunnyside Yard in Queens, then
north more-or-less along the BQE to the Hell Gate Bridge (parallel to the
Triboro) and into the Bronx, then alongside the Bruckner and Sheridan
Expressways, veering west at about 174th St. and crossing the Bronx River
Parkway. They then run east parallel to E. Tremont Avenue and
then north more-or-less parallel to the Hutchinson River Parkway. In New
Rochelle, NY (just south of the station, at a point called Shell
interlocking) they merge with the New Haven line tracks used by Metro-North,
the ones that branch off from the Metro-North Harlem line just north of
Woodlawn (233 St.) Station (which is alongside the BRP).
An interesting side note is that, right about 174th St., there used to be
a connection to what is now the Dyre Ave. subway line, originally the New
York, Westchester and Boston Railway (which never went anywhere near Boston).
The track connection was ripped out years (decades?) ago, but the steel
viaduct over which the connection once ran remained in place until last
year.
Times Square station has another great feature. At least during rush hour, you can get to ANY station on the NYC subway system with one (or no) transfer:
A,C,E,N,R,1,2,3,7,9,Times Square Shuttle - Direct access
B,D,F,Q - N to 34 St.
G - R to Queens Plaza
J,M,Z - A to Broadway Nassau
L - 2 to 14th St.
Franklin Shuttle - A to Franklin Ave.
Queensbridge Shuttle - N to 57th St.
4,5,6 - Shuttle to Grand Central
Fun time: How many other stations can we find where you can pay your fare and get anywhere else on the system (during rush hour to make it simple) with either one or no transfer?
Hate to spoil anyones fun, but by definition, if you can get everywhere from Times Square, you can also get to times square from everywhere, and once there you can get to anywhere else. So you can get FROM any station TO any station.
Yes, but for many point-to-point trips through Times Square, that would take TWO transfers. The "fun" was meant to identify origination stations for which only one (or no) transfer was involved.
Todd, you have been looking at too many isobars!!!
I mistook the meaning of Transfer to be "Paper Transfer", Sorry.
How about West 4th Street/Washington Square? Here goes -
A,B,C,D,E,F,Q -- Direct Access
N,R,1,2,3,7,9, Times Square Shuttle -- A to 42nd Street
G -- F to Smith-9th Streets
J,M,Z -- F to Delancey St.
L -- F to 14th Street
Franklin Shuttle -- A to Franklin Avenue
4,5,6 -- B,D,or F to Broadway-Lafayette St.
Only problem with this station is the 21st Street/Queensbridge Shuttle, but let's assume that service is normal so the B can be taken there.
Actually, this works but not quite as you've described, since the transfer at Broadway/Lafayette is only one-directional. You could, however, take the E or F to Lexington for the 6 and take the A to Broadway/Nassau for the 4 or 5.
whats the WORST ride that you could take on the subway.. from what place to what place could you go where you HAVE to take the most amount of trains.. and something that makes sense, not like going on teh whole system to get back to teh same stop you came from.. what im thinking is maybe from say 242nd on the 1 line to maybe somewhere on the M J or Z.. like metropolitian ave on the M maybe
How about from Dyre avenue (5) to Botanic Garden (S) at 3:00 A.M.? Or maybe Bay 50th St (B) to Metropolitan Ave (M) also at 3:00 A.M.?
The second one makes more sense.
I'd say combine them: Dyre Ave to Metropolitan.
Rush Hour: 5 to Bklyn Br for M
Late Night: 5 to E 180 for 2 to 14th for L to Myrtle for M
Here are my two worst:
#1:
Rockaway Parkway on the L Line to New Lots Avenue on the 3 line. You have to go all the way to Union Square or 6th Avenue to get the 3, or change at Bway-E. New York in Brooklyn to get the A to Bway-Nassau to get the 3, or the J to Fulton St. to get the 3 (except on weekends when you have to change at Chambers to the 4 to Brooklyn to the 3) all because you can't transfer from Livonia Avenue (L) to Junius Street (3), where the two lines meet in Brooklyn. I guess people just take the bus.
#2:
Pelham Bay Park to 137-Broadway to get to CCNY. The ways are all bad. Here are three of them:
The 6 to 125, then the 4 or 5 to Grand Central (or 59th), the shuttle (or N/R) to 42, the 2 or 3 to 96 and the 1 to 137.
Or: 6 to 125, the NB 4 to 161, the SB C/D to 145, the NB A/B to 168, then the SB 1 to 137 St.
Or: 6 to 125, the NB 4 or 5 to 149, then the SB 2 to 96, then the NB 1 to 137.
Not a pretty picture.... Aren't you sorry you asked?
Actually, anytime you have to go from one place in The Bronx to another, if its on one of the other "spokes", so to speak....
This certainly doesn't qualify as the longest, but it is a big pain in the ass-
Suppose you have to get from Metropolitan Ave to Grand Central.
Taking the G from points south of LIC and transfering at 23 Ely Avenue. It stinks because
1) 21 Van Alst is not near the 7 train (Hunters Point or Vernon Jackson) and you have to pay a double fare
2) Court Square is closer to 23 Ely, but again, its the double fare factor.
3) Service on the G is sporadic
4) Taking the L to Union Sq and then the Lex adds time to the trip.
Just a thought....
Just take the M to either Canal St. or Chambers and switch for the uptown 6. It's not that annoying unless it's an evening, weeknight, or weekend in which case you have to switch for the J at Myrtle Ave.
Of course, if you'te an express addict like myself, take the M to Chambers St. and change to the 4 or 5 to Grand Central.
How about this one. 95th Street-Fort Hamilton to Rockaway Park.
R train to Dekalb.
D or Q train to Prospect Park.
S (Franklin Shuttle) to Franklin.
C train to Euclid
A train to Broad Channel
S (Rockaway Shuttle) to Rockaway Park.
Of course, you could take the R to Times Sqaure and transfer for the A to Broad Channel. Then take the S to Rockaway Park. Probably just as time consuming though.
Wouldn't it be faster to take the N to Stilwell, then take the F to Jay st, then the A????
Wouldn't it be even easier to change at 9th St-4th Avenue for the F, go to Jay St. and get the A to Rockaway? That's what we always did.
Yeah,Last night, laying in bed I went "oh,*&%$#, remembering that!!!!
Instead of staying on the C all the way to Euclid Ave, why not change to the A at Nostrand Ave.? 3 stops between Nostrand and Euclid vs 9 on the C.
Going anywhere other than Manhattan on a Sunday is the worst. Before we bought a car, we had to travel from our home in Windsor Terrace (F) to my wife's grandmother's house in Bay Ridge (R) by train. On the map it seems simple -- just tranfer at 4th Avenue and 9th Street. It is only a few miles away. But with infrequent service on both trains, it could take an hour and a half.
My wife's grandmother is a worry wort. If we arrived ten minutes late, we found her saying novinas and assuming we were dead. We had to leave an hour of dead time before arrival to insure we would not be late.
Did you notice that the movie "As Good As It Gets" was filmed in Windsor Terrace (near 15 St.-Prospect Pk for the non-Bklynites). You can see Terrace Bagels in one scene and Helen Hunt lives on Windsor Place.
I suspect the worst possible ride would be from Dyre Av.ein the Bronx to Metropolitan Ave. (M line) in Queens...late on a Saturday or Sunday night.
If it were a weekday night, you could go as follows:
1) Shuttle train to E. 180 St.
2) #2 to Fulton St.
3) J to Myrtle Ave.
4) M shuttle to Metropolitan Ave.
But on weekends the J doesn't run south of Chambers St., so you would have
to take a northbound #4 from Fulton to Chambers (Brooklyn Bridge). Or, better, change at 149 St.-Grand Concourse from the #2 to the southbound #4 to Brooklyn Bridge. Either way, it is 5 trains total. I suspect that at any time other than late weekend nights, 4 trains is sufficient to go from any station to any station. Even if you count the Lenox Terminal shuttle bus as a "train".
Atlantic Av.:
D,Q,2,3,4,5--direct access
B,M,N,R--available from Pacific St, which is, of course, accessable from Atlantic Av.
A,C,E,F--D or Q to W 4
Queensbridge Shuttle--N to 57th St.
7,Times Sq Shuttle--4,5 to Grand Central or 2,3 to Times Sq.
1,9--2 or 3 to Chambers St.
J,Z--2,3,4,5 to Fulton St.
Franklin Shuttle--D to Prospect Park
G--R to Queens Plaza
L--4 or 5 to 14th St.
6--4 or 5 to Brooklyn Bridge
Koi
Queens Plaza comes close -- all lines except the Franklin and Rockaway shuttles are accessible:
A: E to 42nd, or G to Hoyt-Schermerhorn
B: F to 42nd
C: E to 42nd, or G to Hoyt-Schermerhorn
D: F to 42nd
E: direct access
F: direct access
G: direct access
J: F to Delancey, or R to Canal
L: E/F/R to 14th
M: F to Delancey, or R to Canal
N: R to Lex
Q: F to 42nd
R: direct access
S (42): R to 42nd
S (63): R to 57th (but couldn't you walk from Queens Plaza?!)
Z: F to Delancey, or R to Canal
1: R to 42nd
2: R to 42nd
3: R to 42nd
4: R to Lex
5: R to Lex
6: E/F/R to Lex
7: E/F/R to 42nd
9: R to 42nd
Actually, the Rockaway [S] doesn't matter, since the "rule" was to use rush hour service, where the [A] goes to both Rock Park and Far Rock. However, the fact that the Franklin [S] requires two transfers means it doesn't work with one (or no) transfer. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades!
And walking from Queens Plaza to 21st/Queensbridge to avoid having to take the [R] to the (new) [S] takes all the fun out of why we do this in the first place!
> Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades!
And what about atomic bombs?
Fine, you win. In fact, requiring access to the Franklin shuttle forces the station we're considering to be served by the C/D/Q, and requiring access to the 63rd Street shuttle forces the station we're considering to be served by the N/R. (Also, since the goal is to find stations from which we can reach all other *stations* with at most one transfer, we can ignore trains like the 42nd Street shuttle and the Q that share all stops with some other line.) That rules out Queens Plaza immediately (no C/D/Q). In fact, it rules out all of Queens and the Bronx (and Staten Island) -- all solutions are in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Anyway, I propose the following three (yes, three) solutions:
Herald Square:
B/D/F/N/Q/R: direct access
A/C/E: B/D/F/Q to West 4th, or N/R to 42nd
G: F to Smith-9th or Queens Plaza
J/M/Z: N/R to Canal, or F to Delancey
L: F/N/R to 14th
S (Franklin): D/Q to Prospect Park
S (42): N/R to 42nd
S (63): N/R to 57th
1/2/3/9: N/R to 42nd, or F to 14th
4/5/6: N/R to 14th or Lex
7: B/D/F/N/Q/R to 42nd
DeKalb:
D/M/N/Q/R: direct access
A/B/C/E/F: D/Q to West 4th
G: R to Queens Plaza
J/Z: M/N/R to Canal (my favorite transfer point)
L: N/R to 14th
S (Franklin): D/Q to Prospect Park
S (42): N/R to 42nd
S (63): N/R to 57th
1/2/3/9: N/R to 42nd
4/5/6: N/R to 14th or Lex
7: D/N/Q/R to 42nd
Stillwell-Coney Island:
B/D/F/N: direct access
A/C/E/Q: B/D/F to West 4th
G: F to Smith-9th or Queens Plaza
J/M/Z: N to Canal, or F to Delancey
L: F/N to 14th
R: B/D/F/N to 34th
S (Franklin): D to Prospect Park
S (42): N to 42nd
S (63): N to 57th
1/2/3/9: N to 42nd, or F to 14th
4/5/6: N to 14th or Lex
7: B/D/F/N to 42nd
In fact, there are no solutions beyond what have been posted here so far, so don't bother looking. (Sorry -- I'm a computer science grad student, so I tend to prove things like this without much provocation.)
----------
NEW QUESTIONS:
Which station has direct (no transfers) access to the greatest number of stations in the system?
Which pair of stations has the greatest number of (simple) paths between them? (No backtracking, please!)
>Which station has direct (no transfers) access to the greatest number of >stations in the system?
I'd have to say 42nd Street-Times Square or West 4 Street/Washington Square. I didn't go ahead and count all the stations but these stations are served by the most number of trains than any other stations, and the trains at these stations are some of the longest lines with the most stations.
There's also the Atlantic/Pacific complex in Brooklyn.
What about the Rockaway Park shuttle?
As Todd pointed out, we're assuming rush hour schedules, when the A runs to both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. So, follow the directions to the A and make sure you wait for the right one, and you'll end up at Rockaway Park (or anywhere else along the shuttle line).
What's the first?
Well, some people here would say the singing (mostly) naked cowboy. I know he is usually outside at Times Square, but he was recently spotted within the station.
I work has already started for the Broadway and Flushing platforms.
A,C,E,N,Q,R,W,1,2,3,7,9,Times Square Shuttle - Direct access
B,D,F,V - N/Q/R/W to 34 St.
G - E to 23-Ely
J,M,Z - A/C to Broadway-Nassau OR N/Q/R/W to Canal St
L - 1/2/3/A/C/E/N/Q/R/W to 14th St.
Franklin Shuttle - C to Franklin Ave.
Grand St Shuttle - A/C/E to West 4th St.
4,5,6 - 7/Shuttle to Grand Central
I was reading most of the thread titled "new subway map is awful." Being exiled out of the tri-state area, I was wondering whether someone with the appropriate political clout can get the MTA to update their web site with the new map so that the rest of us can see it.
Any takers/comments???
I think that's crazy. Maybe it's just classic MTA beauracracy.
According to the MTA web site the MTA is without a web master. The map is not the only section needing updating. The NYCT portion- maybe NYCT's webmaster could post the new map.
(Yes, I am an employee of the NYCT)
--Opinions expressed are my own and those of the NYCT or MTA---
This morning someone left the door open to the lower level express platform at Bergen Street so I wandered down to take a look. The station is in good shape complete with sinage. A little lighting and it would be indestinguisable from the local station above. While I was poking around down there a train passed through with people on it. I assume that this was the F or the G. Does anyone know the when and why on the use of these lower level tracks? If they are used to skip Bergan and Carrol and maintain spacing between trains, why don't they just open the station and run Express service along the line??? What's the big deal??? Or was it a mystery train???
There was rush hour F service on the lower level from 1968 thru 1976. The lower level is now used for trains which are rerouted due to track work.
Hey, maybe it was a train from 1976 with some really tired passengers! Does anybody know what kind of track work is being done?
Adam-
Maybe you saw the infamous mystery *Downtown E train* that I was on last Dec. 16, that stopped at the closed Lower Level 42d St IND rush hour platform. The train must have changed tracks at West 4th, and is still running throughout the IND system. Thank goodness I got off at 42d St!!
:-) Next stop: Worth Street!
It's a real shame that they don't bring back express service, although technically you really can't call it Culver Express. I remember the service, but too young to remember if the ridership justified it.
We lived on Kings Highway halfway between the F - Culver and N - Sea Beach. During rush hours, my Dad's train of choice to get work in Downtown Brooklyn was the F. Getting on at Kings Highway, the express stops were 18th Ave, Church Ave, 7th Avenue, Bergen Street - Lower Level, and then Jay Street. Between Church and 7th Avenue, the express tracks took a more direct route than the local tracks. F's starting at Kings Highway ran local to Ditmas before being switched to the express, and the G, then GG at the time, terminated at Church Avenue during rush hours.
The N made all stops to 59th Street - 4th Avenue before running express, and then you had to change at Pacific St. because the N made straight for the Bridge. You were in Downtown Brooklyn on the F before the N even got rolling.
With the budget cuts in 1976, they killed the service. The G didn't go to Church during rush hours, and the F only ran express 18th Avenue - Kings Highway.
It was a great service, they should bring it back. Ridership would go up.
I live near Kings Highway and take the D and switch to the F to get to work. If the F ran Express I would walk or take the B82 with free transfer to the F at kings highway just for a one train trip. Currently it takes me 45min to 1hour to get from Kings Hwy to Queens Plaza with the D/Q to the F. Last time I took the F the whole way (return Block Buster Vids) it was 1.5 hour or beter.
I was asked to consider a job opportunity working in Syosset Long Island. I currently live in the Bronx near the 4,C,and D lines as well as MetroNorth. (Fordham Road vicinity)I dont have the complete address of the company but I do know it is Publishers Clearinghouse located in Syosset LI. I am not familiar with Long Island and was wondering if anyone could help me in finding the best possible route there via public transportation. (I do not drive) If you can help me or forward this message to someone who can I would deeply appreciate it. Thanks so much.
You can take the LIRR from Penn Station to Syosset. The trip is about an hour long (plus, of course, the subway trip to Penn), and a monthly ticket is $154.00. As you'll be traveling reverse peak, assuming the job is first shift, there won't be as many trains as there would be for rush hour. You can find LIRR schedules online at www.lirr.org.
It also matters, of course, whether the workplace is within walking distance of the Syosset train station. If it isn't, there probably is bus service, though you'd have to add in the time and cost. Long Island Bus schedules can be found on the MTA's page, www.mta.nyc.ny.us. Hope this helps.
Syosset is a nice place, but I suspect it will be very hard to reverse commute to on the LIRR. I am guessing that one or two trains will be all that will fit your schedule. It is on the Port Jefferson branch, which is not heavily serviced even in the on-peak direction. It is also an expensive place to live. You might want to look into where the bus lines run East and South from Syosset, and check for affordable housing there.
Reverse-peak and offpeak service to Syosset actually isn't that bad. Trains seem to run about every half hour. While the entire Pt. Jefferson line is not among the most heavily served, the electrified part up to Huntington - which includes Syosset - has a lot more service.
Whether commuting from the Bronx works for Brenda probably will depend on whether the workplace is within walking distance of Syosset station. While there probably are connecting buses, I suspect their schedules aren't coordinated with trains for reserve-peak riders.
Most of the offices in the Syosset area are not walking distance from the Syosset LIRR station. Rather than taking the LIRR to Syosset, you may be better off taking the LIRR to Hicksville (one stop earlier) and finding a connecting bus there.
LIRR service to Hicksville should be a bit more frequent than to Syosset (2 lines instead of 1). Also, Long Island Bus (516-766-6722 ??) has extended
many of its Hicksville routes up into the Jericho/Syosset office parks in recent years.
Good Luck,
Chuck
Greetings! I have two topics to discuss. One is a question and the other is a silly thought. I was wondering why do local/express lines(especially the IRT West Side) diverge from each other. To me it would make more sense for the express lines to stay with the locals that they accompany(this is usually seen only in Manhattan). I would imagine it is to give more areas service, but it's starnge to travel 13 stops on a subway and suddenly hear the conductor say "This train is now an express". And my second point is I find it unusual for a light rail line to share a tunnel with a heavy rail line(as is the case in Philadelphia and Brussels, I see). I keep seeing the term track gauge come up and here's where my silly thought comes in. Why not have an overhead wire that runs over a heavy rail track in the event that, say, an underground detour route was necessary. Hmm. Well, so long for now!
From the very beginning, the intention of having express and local service was to distinguish between the passenger who travels short distances and one which needs to get from, say, the Bronx to Brooklyn as quickly as possible. There was never any intention of having parallel express and local service over the entire length of a specific line. One line does come close: the IND Queens line.
As for your example of diverging routes, that pattern on the West Side IRT was implemented around 1960. Prior to that, both branches north of 96th St. had express and local service, and fully half of the trains operating on those routes had to change tracks due to the fact that the express tracks go to the Lenox Ave. branch, while the local tracks continue due north along Broadway. This resulted in delays. With the arrival of new equipment and new signalling, it was decided to make all trains coming off the Lenox branch expresses south of 96th St., and all trains coming down Broadway locals.
As a general rule, express routes are longer than local routes for the reason mentioned above; most originate as locals in one borough, go into Manhattan where they run express, and continue onto a third borough where they either remain an express or revert back to being a local. The are exceptions: the E and F both run express in Queens, but become locals in Manhattan (the F continues onto Brooklyn and remains a local). Local routes are generally shorter; most of them will originate in one borough and terminate in Manhattan. Two exceptions are the C, which starts in the Bronx, goes through Manhattan, and winds up in Brooklyn (At one time, it continued onto Queens, the only route ever to serve four boroughs.), and the R, which starts in Queens, goes through Manhattan, and winds up in Brooklyn. The G has the distinction of being the only route which never enters Manhattan, if you don't count the Franklin Ave. Shuttle.
I hope this is making sense. It's what makes New York's system unique.
I have three queries for you. A-Why was the 'G' never meant to enter Manhattan?
B-Why isn't there a direct line from the Bronx to Long Island( i.e. Queens and Brooklyn) and C-Why is there no connection between Staten Island and the rest of the city via subway. Couldn't a line cross the Verrazano Bridge?
As to C, the answer is MOSES! No, not the man with the long beard who split the Re(e)d Sea. Robert Moses, the man with the short vision who tried to split the middle and upper class, and whites, away from the lower class and minorities.
Many would say I was starting off too harsh on Robert Moses. After all, he didn't really have a "short vision". He had a grand vision -- but of a future without public transportation, especially railways, in which the middle and upper classes would drive from their city jobs to their suburban homes exclusively on high-speed, grade-separated superhighways with overpasses purposely too low for buses or trucks. What he intended to happen to the masses who could not afford automobiles, I don't know.
If you haven't figured out what his job was yet, he basically ran one of the bridge and parkway authorities -- Triborough, I believe. To give the devil his due, he definitely got large public works projects done, cutting red tape and sniffing out funding.
He admitted on several occasions that he disliked the railroads. When it came to the building of the Verrazano Narrows bridge, under his authority, some plans for the bridge included a lower deck for rail, but Moses, once he got approval and financing for a lower deck on the pretext that tracks would be installed there, outright refused to allow the installation of rail tracks on the bridge.
It's true that when Robert Moses built the bridge, he would not allow
any trains on it. However, the bridge opened appx 30 years ago.
Why couldn't a rail line be placed on the bridge today. Isn't the lower
level wide enough for 2 lanes of traffic and 2 tracks?
Bob Moses did not let trains on it. I do not know why. Although the bridge is probably wide enough, the deck and perhaps the cables are not strong enough for subway trains. Provision would have had to been made at the time of construction to accommodate trains.. Now it would be cheaper to build a separate bridge or tunnel for the subway then to try and modify the bridge for trains. That brings us to another problem. The Feds will pay 90% of the cost of a primary road. They rarely pay more than 50% for a subway line. That's why most places choose the hiway over transit, MONEY!
Suppose, for the moment, that the Verrazano could support the weight of subway trains crossing its lower deck. Is the grade too steep for a crowded subway train to negotiate?
--Mark
heard on the news that the mta is let contract of plimnary design for tunnel to nj under the habor.
Not the MTA. It was either NYCDOT, or PANY/NJ.
-Hank
The feds will pay up to 80% of a transit project but the palnning process or alternatives analyisis will take for ever and new transit lines are hard to create. Roads are not so hard even though they are to have the same planning requirements now
Answer to Question #1:
The G never entered Manhattan because it serves the east side of the river. Also, the IND plan was for local trains never to go into Manhattan during rush hour. The original IND did not connect to the Manhattan Bridge at Grand St, nor did it connect to the Broadway line at 59 St. The GG was to be the local in Queens and Smith St.(Brooklyn), as well as the Crosstown local. If the system had operated as planned, all local riders on those lines would change at Bergen, Hoyt-Schermerhorn, or Queens Plaza to a Manhattan train. The Fulton St. local was originally expected to terminate at the now museumized Court-St(Schermerhorn) Station. The Manhattan 8th Avenue locals terminated at Chambers St.-Hudson Terminal (now WTC).
Answer to Question #2:
There is a lot of water between the Bronx and Queens, which makes tracks there expensive. Also, there are not very many people who need to go from the Bronx to Queens, especially compared to the number needing to go into Manhattan. Besides, if the tracks exist and are a little roundabout for those (relatively few) Bx-Q trips, it is not worth diverting money for that light usage. Besides you can't even go across the Bronx by subway, without going to Manhattan or at least to the Hub. I'd prefer a Cross-Bronx subway to a Bx-Q subway. Heck, I wish they'd convert the Cross Brooklyn Freight Railway into a light rail passenger line.
With regard to the IND, note also that the abortive Second System would have channelled more riders between Brooklyn and Manhattan via one or possibly two new river crossings. The Hudson Terminal (now WTC) station would have been a through station.
I don't know whether the no-locals-across-the-river plan would have been implemented had the Second System been built.
I'm not so sure that Hudson Term would have been a through station. If the old Hudson Terminal went as deep as WTC does now, they would have had to knock out a chunk of the basement for a through route. Besides, there appear to be turnoffs just south of Canal Street which were probably for the Second system.
When I asked the question a few months back, Dave assured me that the second system Worth St. Line was to have taken off well North of the stub terminal at WTC,leaving it in a similar state as Court St.
As I understand, the stub leading to Court St. was to continue under the East River to Manhattan and wind up feeding into the 2nd Ave. line.
That was my understanding as well, until recently. The best illustration is posted @www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/south4. Click on the illustration titled Manhattan End.
Also regarding question #1 (G not running to Manhattan), I'll venture to say that it wasn't the only line planned to not go into Mahnattan. There was a cross-Queens line that was supposed to originate at Roosevelt Ave / Jackson Heights (an island platform and 2 700' trackways exist), travel south through Queens and connect to the Rockaways using the former LIRR trackage. Part of the IND second system, it never got built.
--Mark
The subways were built on the assumption that most people who started their trip in the Bronx, Brooklyn , or Queens were headed for Manhattan, especially if they lived in one of those boroughs and worked in Manhattan. If you look at a New York subway map, you'll note that, except for the G, nearly every line winds up in, or goes through, Manhattan.
It's hard to say if there would have been much demand for a line from the Bronx to Queens. I've had bizarre dreams in which such a line actually does exist (I have a bizarre subway dream about once a month, but I won't go there).
As for linking up Staten Island, there was talk about a tunnel under the Narrows back in the teens and 20s. Construction can be seen south of 59th St.-4th Ave which would have led to such a tunnel. As I mentioned in a previous post, it was no coincidence that the SIRT cars ordered back in the 20s bore a resemblance to the BMT standard; they were designed to be able to navigate through BMT tunnels. They could not, however, run in multiple unit with BMT standards.
That sounds like a good explanation. And it jibes with what I have thought
for a while about this, that the reason New York has express/local service
on most lines, while other cities don't, is the "linear" nature of Manhattan
island. In other cities, lines radiate in all directions from a central "downtown" area. In NYC, "downtown" is a direction (south). Regardless of where you are coming from, your line will spend a good portion of its
length running along the north/south axis of Manhattan island. Because
so many lines run essentially parallel, dividing them into express/local
pairs makes sense, whereas it wouldn't in cities that lack this "backbone"
geography, which is to say most others.
Light Rail/Heavy Rail: Light rail and heavy rail have the same track
guage, normally 4' 8". (The San Fransisco BART system unwisely chose an
unusual wide track guage of 5' 2".) In Cleveland, light rail and heavy
share the same tracks, with dual stops (the heavy rail uses high platforms
and the light rail uses low platforms). Here is the interesting part, the
shared trackage is left-hand haul. Originally, all the stations were
center platform. When the new Light Rail Vehicles arrived, they only had
doors on the right hand side -- so they changed to left-hand haul so the
LRVs could unload onto the center platforms, even though they were low.
In San Diego, the LRV system shares its tracks with a frieght railroad.
Most LRVs run on 600 to 750 VDC, ussually on overhead cantenarry. In
San Fransisco, the LRVs share a 600 VDC system with the trolly busses.
They also share the same subway with BART, running on 1,000 VDC (that
drove the electrical engineer types nuts). They have one large
intersection that handles trolley busses (two trolley poles), LRVs
(pantograph) and street cars (one trolley pole). This also includes a
rail interlocking.
in fact the SF Muni Metro Subway is a physically separate set of tunnels although for some dozen blocks on Market st the BART is in a lower level. The jointly constructed tunnels were originally to be two BART routes. After much folderol we got BART in the lower level 1kv dc 3rd rail 5ft 6 in guage and Muni Metro on the upper level tied into pre existing trolley lines both street running and tunnels, as well as some very short private ROW and a recently added link also mixed street, median PROW on a routing once used by Espee. Muni is 600vdc.
And Muni track is standard gauge.
There is an error on the Cleveland Rapid Left Hand (west of Terminal Tower) running - the left hand existed long before CTS built the Rapid. The Cleveland Interurban Railway Company (Shaker Rapid) used the right-of way from East 55th Street to the Terminal. Because of the way the subways into the Terminal were arranged and the space within the platforms, the cars ran left handed from the
E 55 tunnels to the unloading platform, looped and returned to East Cleveland and Shaker Heights.
When CTS started building the Rapid in 1953, they had to retain the left handed layout because of the Shaker Junction and the subway layout at the Terminal. A new center platform was built at the Terminal for the Rapid and the trackage was arranged east of the platform to put the trains on the right side.
The center low platforms were needed because the Shaker cars (1200's and PCC's) had doors only on the right side. Shaker had a stop at E 34 and E 55, in the center and it was weird to wait there as a CTS train passed.
When the Breda LRV's were built, there are doors on both sides since the cars are double-ended.
I forgot to add that until the RTA era, the CIRR (and later the City of Shaker Heights, Department of Tranportation) owned the right-of way from the Terminal to East 55th and CTS was a tenant. It was also the only transit operation at the time where a trolley pole and a pantograph shared a common wire. (Until Boston and San Francisco.)
On my latest sojourn to the City of Brotherly Love I had the lucky privelige to ride their new subway cars(apparently, there is only one train running and the others won't be in circualtion for quite some time) and when I got off on the elevated and took a look at the underside I noticed something VERY strange about the trucks. If I remember correctly it was the back wheel, but one of the wheels definately had a DOUBLE-WHEEL! It looked like there was one riding the rail and another about four inches out that looked like it was meant to run on a wider gauge! What the heck was that?
I imagine what you saw was an outboard disk brake rotor; these are becoming popular, although I don't understand why not using the wheel itself can be preferable.
Because the wheels will last longer. Frinction brakes cause wear on the running wheel. It's easier to replace the brake disk than the wheel, and the wheels will need to be trued less. Strange, however, is that the disk is actually outboard of the running wheel. AEM7 and ALP44 have the disks bolted to the wheels, and most passenger coaches have them inboard.
-Hank
i see some reading mu's (in philly)with outside disk a few ago
Actually, friction brakes, either clasp or tread brake, cause little or no wheel wear. On NYCT equipment, wheels are supposed to last 6 years in normal use. The greatest detriment to wheel longevity is flat wheels due to propulsion or brake system failure. Wheel wear due to normal friction brake operation is minimal because the composition brake shoes are softer than the wheel. I think that in the case of disk brakes, the concentric rotor is used because of caliper design & construction considerations. Oddly enough, the middle car of the R-110b triplex have both standard treadbrake units as well as disk brakes. (Care to guess why?)
Do you think that maybe the extra wheels are intended to come into play if there is a derailment? Philly has a lot of elevated track, and there is always a problem of the truck "cutting" through the ties and falling underneath the track. Perhaps the extra wheels are intended to rest on the rails if there is a minor derailment?
--mhg
Do I sound strange in saying I like seeing the inside of a subway tunnel as opposed to the open view of an el?
What you saw were outside disc brakes. These have become almost a standard in passenger railroading (the Amfleet cars are so equipped and they reach speeds of 125+ MPH in regular NE Corridor service) so their use in urban rapid transit service should not be unusual.
Why does the MTA take away these great lines. The NX train would have been a bog line in the summer. They used the line for one year. One year is nothing. This line would have been a big line if it were still here. The QB train it was the only line that went full time from 121 Street to to Coney Island. Some of these crutial lines sould be put back. I need help to show the chairman that the lines should be put back in double letter but not that confusing. Also I have weird line . That goes from 179st to Lefters Blvd. Tell me what you think?
Christopher Rivera age 12
I think you should learn to spell better, or type better. That would be a
"big thing" for you, crucial actually, so you won't look like you crawled
out of a bog.
By the way, the line that went from Jamaica Ave. to Coney Island was the
QJ, not the QB, so I guess you found the double letters confusing after
all. It ran from 168 St. in Jamaica, before the "el" was cut back to 121
St. And there used to be rush-hour E trains that ran from 179 St. to Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park, so running similar trains to Lefferts Blvd.
would not be that weird.
As for the NX, it was discontinued due to lack of ridership. I admit I wish could have ridden it back then even once; it had the longest nonstop express run of any subway route in the city, skipping 8 consecutive stations.
I rode the NX once, of course looking out the front window. It was great, making no stops from 59 St.(Brooklyn, 4th Avenue)) all the way to about 50 feet before Coney Island. Then it inched to the one track that was to be used to connect to the Brighton Line, stopped at Coney Island where most got off, then inched its way into W. 8th St., normal through Ocean Parkway, then really inched its way into Brighton Beach. They couldn't maintain good service; that may be another reason it had to be discontinued.
Now, if they ran it, there would be one slight improvement; the track shared for 1/2 mile with the West End right before Coney Island no longer is shared, which might make it a bit easier, but now that the N no longer uses the Manhattan Bridge, and everyone on the Brighton Line has adjusted to the line being a 6th Avenue line (after a generation), the NX would be useful only to us SubTalkers.
Which train now has the longest express run?
Depending on the time of day, it may or may not be a 3-way tie:
A: skips 7 stops between 125th St. and 59th St.-Columbus Circle all times except late nights.
D: skips these same 7 stops at all times.
5: skips 7 stops between 3rd Ave. and E. 180th St. during rush hours in the peak direction only.
But in terms of mileage between stops, the winner is the 3.8 miles between Broad Channel and Howard Beach on the A train.
--Mark
Yes, and I remember the first time I rode on that line - that A train of R-10s was FLYING!!
<< I think you should learn to spell better, or type better. >>
Give the kid a break, he's only 12.
Christopher ....
The NX line that you mention, as well as others, were truly great lines from a railfan point of view. Long fast express runs. But from a financial point of view, the lines didn't have the ridership required to support them. So the TA stopped running them. It doesn't make sense for the TA to run great lines that have low ridership.
There were two other lines that used to run that are worth mentioning:
- there used to be Brighton Line special service to the Theatre District ('40s, I forget the dates)
- there also used to be beach service from Franklin Av to Brighton Beach running until the mid '50s, first running all summer, then summer weekends only.
Both of these services also suffered from declining ridership and higher priority issues like maintenance of the existing infrastructure.
That isn't to say that NYC Transit still doesn't do these sorts of things now and then. For example, over the past few summers, the B9 bus in Brooklyn was extended to Riis Park in Rockaway during sunny summer weekends. Longer trains are run on the D train also during summer weekends. Same for the Rockaway Park shuttle. And now the A train will have Brooklyn express service to 10pm weeknights, because ridership supports it.
Perhaps another "great line" will emerge once the 63rd St tunnel connection to the IND Queens Blvd Line opens. We'll have to wait and see.
--Mark
I'm surprised that the NX line never got sufficient ridership. A "super-express" like that sounds like something that would be really popular with riders.
Although not quite the same, The E from Queens Plaza to Continental stops only once, covers about six miles, and passes through and around ten local stations.
Well, how much ridership could possibly fill the NX if the benefit of the super express was for riders living near the Brighton line stations west of Brighton Beach? After Stillwell, the next stop was 59th St / 4th Ave. There's really no benefit for other riders beyond that point, since the line made the same stops as the N train did. Riders between Stillwell and 59th St couldn't capitalize on it. And considering that at the time, there were 5 other lines (QB, QJ, B, F, N) calling Stillwell Ave their home during rush hours, taking some of the ridership away, it couldn't get the riders need to keep the line going.
I guess when Coney Island was the playground of the world in the 20s to the 50s, ridership of the kind the TA hoped for was possible. But not in 1968 - 1969.
--Mark
Will the Subway Resources have the new NYC subway maps soon?
No. It's not our right to be posting the official MTA map on this site.
The older maps aren't technically ours to post either but it's a matter of who really cares. It's not like we make money from the site.
-Dave
That's understandable.
Everything I have read here leads me to judge that the older version of the map that is available on the MTA website is superior to the new one. As such, I have downloaded a copy and saved it. I advise all to do the same. It is possible, due to the flexibility given by Adobe Acrobat, to print out a full sized color version (Scotch Tape necessary).
Well, what do you guys think of the latest news that SEPTA, Philadelphia's favorite public transit system, will be going on strike on March 15 if their demands aren't met? That will be the second strike in 3 years! When was the last MTA strike, if any?
Jack--
You seem to be piling the whole blame for a possible strike on the SEPTA management.
These are the people that want to cut back absenteeism amongst their employees. Do you know of any job where you can be absent as many as a dozen times a year and still get paid for eight hours work?
They are also the people that want to initiate automated fare collection systems over the union's objection.
They are also the people who want the flexibility to re-assign people based on demands. For example, the Philadelphia Flower Show, which draws several hundred thousand people, is this weekend. Yet they cannot add service without union approval and they must bring in a certain amount of people, even if they don't need all those people.
SEPTA's management also wants to adopt a Metrocard-style fare structure and have the flexibility to put smaller buses or vans on bus lines when ridership is light.
But the union wants to keep these old rules and is threatening to strike. Unfortunately, some of the political leadership in this city backs the union. I wonder what they will say when there is limited subway service or buses.
Without these rule changes, there may not be a SEPTA in the future.
Michael
There was an MTA strike in the spring of 1980. At that time, so many people took to bicycle riding that bike paths were put in along avanues in Manhattan. After the strike was settled, the bike paths fell into disuse. There were T shirts which proclaimed, "I survived the transit strike of 1980".
I've got one of those buttons .... ended up riding my bike to high school for two weeks during that strike .....
--Mark
Maybe I was letting off steam. It's just that SEPTA hasn't always shown some kind of(to me) consideration for the people who will be suffering the most-the riders of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Even people from other states depend on SEPTA to get from point A to point B. I'll honestly tell you that I'd be lost without them. I don't entirely blame anything on either side, but really! TWO strikes in THREE years! If they didn't try to solve these problems with the Great Strike of 1995, why did they go back. I would have gladly been lost for another two or three days if it meant I wouldn't have to worry about it again in three years. Our mayor, Ed Rendell, showed us the kind of stand that should be put up against people who try to paralyze a major city like Philadelphia. He had to deal with city workers ready to strike a few years back. I don't think there would be much of a strike if he mediated it. If President Clinton can do it with UPS, the mayor can do it with SEPTA. People who need SEPTA have to look out for fare hikes, service changes and disruptions or terminations of service almost every 6 months. To take up the union's side, I agree that SEPTA has sufficient funds to meet their demands. They seem to be able to afford new buses, new el cars and renovations on the "R" trains. But to take up for management, that money may be tied up, and maybe they just don't have it. There is nothing wrong with trying to eliminate or at least cut back worker absenteeism. So my advice-if they are absent a certain number days, don't pay 'em for it. Conversely, what's wrong with asking for a little more money if you're working double-time? This is one of those situations that gets so big because it involves one of the nations largest public transit entities and 400,000 riders, a union and a mangement at the center of it all.
Unfortunatly for the long suffering SEPTA riders, TWU (Transport Workers Union) 234, negotiations have always been conducted in a hostile environment. Management (very few who date beck to PTC/NCL days) is ALWAYS wrong and trying to cut the throat of every member. 234 is a bunch of bums who ALWAYS want more money for less work. Its been like that since we all were small, and it may be with us forever and ever.
However, it's ALWAYS the rider who pays.
Sick Transit, Glorius Monday!
I think one of the keys to breaking the union may be public relations. If the press emphasizes what a cushy and wasteful arrangement labor has, public sentiment can be strong enough to force the union to accept some reforms. Something like this happened in NY, where the union work rules were pretty outrageous.
What can you say about an organization whose slogan is "We're getting there."
The big question is "if". After the two-week strike in '95, a smart labor union would have realized that 1) Even with any gains in wages, benefits, etc (which were not very large), they still lost two weeks' worth of wages, benefits, etc, 2) The region did not shut down, as it had in the past, proving that people are becoming more self-mobile and less transit-reliant (commuter rail picked up much of the transit ridership and retained a surprisingly good amount even after the transit strike ended), 3) The union is against the same old thing (part-time workers, etc) and sooner or later it's going to need to cave in, 4) The public isn't solidly behind the union (already-high fares will likely increase if the union's demands are fully met), and 5) Most importantly, this is a new union chief flexing his muscle against a new SEPTA GM, and this is what the whole thing is all about. It's a shame that this can't be settled more easily, for if there is an extended strike, transit in Phila will take a giant step backward.
I know I sound a little anti-union, and this may incur the wrath of some readers, but I'm also a daily customer of the system and a supporter of transit. The SEPTA drivers have a few too many bad apples who do not see their charges as passenger service, and for nearly $18 per hour, maybe people who really want to work should be brought in at the expense of those who don't want to be there. Of course, there are many courteous and good drivers, but they are not in the majority. Some of you may argue that SEPTA management is overpaid, and I'll agree with you on that, too, but the way to equalize salaries is not to overpay labor also.
If I had to choose sides, I would go with management and urge labor to wake up and smell reality. Operating a transit vehicle is not an easy job, but it also involves a little more than having some control of the vehicle, and many SEPTA drivers need to learn the tradition of transit service workers.
$60.000.00 a year to drive a bus, trolley, el-subway, this includes all those freebees (benefits.)
I have seen them REFUSE to answer a transportation related question, it happened to me a few times, that was properly asked and ignored. Bad enough, to say "I don't know," for 60G a year, you ought to know a lot about the job, but to IGNORE, they should be OFF the vehicle and OUT of HERE.
I spent 40 years behind the counter and am well aware of how many stupid questions THEY get, I got, and ALL the other people get, that work with the public. But when they ask a question that is proper and makes sense, YOU MUST, YOU HAVE TO ANSWER, or you don't belong there and should be replaced.
This is the way that SEPTA is GOING TO GET THERE, replace that 85%.
Five minutes to cross a street, at a time point, and the bus flies by. 1 minute, you say "sarn it" but 5, that bus only runs every half hour and sometimes, every hour.
I feel sorry for the people that are making $12.000, $15.000 with benefits a year, they have to get to the three jobs they're holding down, or I would say to them, "STAY OUT FOR EVER."
I AGREE, the 15% are GREAT. It seems that they just can't do enough for the passenger, THEY are unbeleivable.
I would go with management also. But if you complain, they do nothing.
Oh yeah. They're getting there. They're just not doing it fast enough.
I appreciated the reply on how to change the format of the message index so it no longer appears in chronological (default) order, but in the reverse
threaded order I prefer. I revised the order using the appropriate "change" link, but nothing happened. Any ideas?
Thanks.
Mike Rothenberg
When you select the format you wish to use, you have to use the "View Message Index" button at the bottom. You can't just go back using the back button. Your choices will be reflected in the new index page. If your browser has cookie support enabled your preferences will be retained. You're the first person who said it isn't working so I'd just make sure you're not going "back" to the previous index.
Looking for up to date roster info
Fleet number model number MFGR date
thank you
Steve
http://www.angelfire.com/ma/TRACKMAPS/index.html
They've arrived and boy do they look ugly, the NEW THE MAPS with the B and C switches have finally arrived.
Foti
I am confused-
Is the MTA going back to the old style maps when they produce the corrections in april?
-Michael
???????????????????????What Corrections??????????????????
List them so I could find them.
Foti-
Just for the record i still think THE MAP is Ugly.
and I don't think MTA is going back to the old style subway map.
This Saturday (2/28/1998) I picked up a copy of "the Map" at the Grand Central Transit museum Gift Shop. It had the B and C going to their correct Northern terminals (B to Bedford Park or 145 and C to 168).
Well, 2 mistakes are confusion over which trains stop at Van Wyck Blvd. in Queens (the station is listed as half a black dot) and the 2 spellings of Beverl(e)y Road in Brooklyn. (Brooklyn bus maps list the street in several places with only 2 e's.)
And does the new version of "The Map" show the s53 bus now connecting with the R train at its new terminal of 86 St. instead of its old terminal of 95 St.? (The MTA decided to have both buses that connect lower Brooklyn to S.I. over the Verrazano Bridge, the s53 & s79, terminate at 86 St., effective March 1.)
Even the stations can't agree on the spelling. If you 'll check out this stop
on the Flatbush line you'll fint it spelled both ways!!-the mosaic has one E
as does the extension of the platforms. The signs at the exit have two Es.
The sign at the token booth has one E. The Brighton Line Station has 2 Es.
According to the Hagstrom Five Borough Atlas, the street is listed with 1 E.
According to my Hagstrom 5-Borough Atlas, the index says "Beverly Road", but the maps say both "Beverley Road" and "Beverly Road". My childhood was spent 1/2 block from Beverley Road, and almost every street sign had the "ley" ending. Everyone in the neighborhood said that the extra "E" was correct, and that the IRT was wrong. Without the E, it's a female name, with the E it's a male name. Of course it may have been someone's last name. It is mainly there to be alphabetically correct: Albemarle, Beverley, Cortelyou, Dorchester (and Ditmas), no street with an E, but "Newkirk" instead, Foster (and Farragut), Glenwood, Avenue H, etc. Quentin Road replaces "Avenue Q".
From what i remember, when the signs were black, it was "-ly", when they replaced by the green ones in the 80's, it was changed to "-ley".
Yes. I don't know if anyone knows anymore what they should be. I remember as far back as the signs with the little oval above with the cross-street. Even then they had different spellings.
The reason for Beverley Rd and Beverly Rd is that from McDonald Ave to Flatbush Ave was originally Beverley Rd - British spelling. Flatbush Ave to Ralph Ave was Beverly Rd - American spelling. They just changed it all to one spelling to make it easier for everyone.
The reason behind this was that the McDonald Ave to Flatbush Stratch is a good 50 years older than the other side and all of the streets in that area have British names including the streets:
E 16 - Buckingham
E 15 - Marlborough
E 14 - Rugby
E 13 - Argyle
E 12 - Westminster
I had asked this same question a few years ago since that was my neighborhood until a few months ago.
The names you mentioned + plus one other come from the name of the farmer that the Prospect Park South development in Brooklyn was bought from: Benjamin Swarm. The streets are
Stratford Rd.
Westminster Rd.
Argyle Rd.
Rugby Rd.
Marlborough Rd.
Buckingham Rd.
Notice that the first initials are SWARM B
BTW, Al Sharpton now lives on Buckingham Road.
As for Van Wyck Blvd, the F always stops there now. The E supposedly skips it during weekdays when it runs express all the way to Parsons/Archer; the turnoff is just east of Van Wyck. At least they finally acknowledged on maps that the E runs local beyond Continental Ave. on evenings and weekends. That's probably where the confusion was.
In an older post the last week, some commented:
>Also, do any other cities besides NYC weld live third rail? Or do they
>shut it off?
Does this mean NY actually welds, grinds, etc the rail while it's ON???
If this is true, how unique is the practice??
how substantial are the losses through the third rail insulators, and do they ever clean them off to cut leakage???
I do not believe that we weld 3rd rail at all. At least I have never seen welded 3rd rail and don't believe that there is a practical need for it. I also doubt very seriously that anyone in their right mind would work on a live 3rd rail and our System Safety department would never allow it. We do have a device, not often used now, which was hooked to a 3rd rail and the 6oo volts was used (through a bank of resistors) to cut and weld. With advances in welding and cutting technology, though, I have not seen that equipment in many years.
Yes they do weld 3rail, in fact thats how the NYCTA put in new 3rail in the field. New 3rail comes in 39ft. lengths (same as running rails) and they are welded together using steel bars that are welded into the web of the rails at each joint. They used to Cadweld (thermoweld) the joints together not any more.
They used to have a Ajax welding machine (the one with the resistors). The TA finally got new welding machines, they are much smaller and have solid state workings. Yes they do weld live 3rail and under traffic if nessary. Most of the time they weld with power off, but alot of times it is done live. Cutting 3rail they use Mapp gas and Oxygen tanks and burn them out, also done live and under traffic if need be.
Guess I need to get out on the road more often !!!
I guess Baltimore's still in the Dark Ages, since our subway is equipped from Hopkins to Owings Mills with miles of 39ft bolted joint third rail. The joint surface is ground smooth so that third rail shoes don't arc at every joint.
4-0 trolley wire rules
Not in Baltimore (at least for streetcars) we use 3 O hard drawn copper for troley wire. LRV is another story.
What is the spec for the LRV wire?? I have seen some pictures it looks pretty stout
I think it's all 4.0 or the equivalent teardrop wire. I don't know the size in mcm's. The North Avenue/Camden section is constant tension, the rest of the system is weight-tensioned simple catenary.
I don't know about the technical details, but my understand is also that 3rd rail is welded. If it weren't, at every rail junction would be a spark whenever the shoe passed over the junction, which is damaging to the metal, risks damage to the shoe if the gap is not level, and also wastes energy.
I also recall reading about how 3rd rail is replaced. Late at night, crews work the sections of rail, cutting and replacing, just as would be done with the running rails. This is often done with the 3rd rail live b/c the work train and revenue trains are still operating. Indeed, the timing of the process is geared to the regular timing of revenue trains, with the work train running in circles, back and forth, to pick up and drop off rails as sections are completed.
I've never seen this, BTW, it's just what I've read.
--mhg
I checked some NYCT 3rd rail and LIRR 3rd rail. I checked along 8th Ave (A & C lines) and the LIRR mainline from Jamaica to Hicksville. There is no welded 3rd rail. All 3rd rail I observed is made up of 39 foot sections held together by standard joiners. This includes the LIRR Mainline where the MAS is 80 MPH. Do you know of any place where there is welded 3rd rail?
I cannot speak for the LIRR, I have no idea how they join their rails together.
I don't know were on the A line you travel but if you are ever in Brooklyn there are a few sections were there is welded 3rail and you don't have to put your safety vest on they are in the station:
Atlantic Ave. IRT Track 2,4
Pacific St. BMT all four tracks
Brooklyn Bridge IRT Track 2 maybe track 3 (not in Bklyn)
Boro Hall on the Lex line (#4) both tracks
They are in the process of renewing the contact rail at 86 St. station in Bklyn on the R line. I know they did work at Canal St. on the A on the northbound crossover just north of the station. If you stand on the southbound platform, north end you might see some of their work. I don't get uptown very much.
On the els when they renew track panels they weld the contact rails together.
I don't think you will see any bolted joints on any elevated lines in the city.
I just noticed yesterday that the MBTA uses welded 3rd rail on the Red line, at least out in Braintree.
As a matter of fact I did put on my vest and walked about 75 feet from my office door. I must appologize. The new 6 track in my yard has welded 3rd rail.
No need to apologize, sometimes the answer is closer then you think.
If they took a track out of service everytime a peice of 3rail had to be welded or serviced could you image the confusion and tie up on the trains. Service to the 3rail is done LIVE all the time as not to disrupt any service or inconvenace the riding public. Shuting down a section of 3rail cost money.
Beginning Sunday OPTO begins on the G line
Is this all the time (24hrs/7days) or only at night? Which other trains are getting OPTO and when?
I finished the G train research today (3/2/1998). The posters say "Weekends"O a
I also found evidence leading me to belive that the G might return to Church Avenue- I found "OPTO S " signs and "r-46 6 Car G" signs at Church and all stations to Smith/9th.
Could a return of F express service not be too far behind?
Would that mean a 10 minute wait between trains for Prospect Park Station riders, and the need to change trains to get to Midtown? Where is Councilman Cuite when you need him?
Another possibility -- they might want to run the G only during late nights, and make the F a shuttle south of Church. I believe there has been some changes betweeen the G and F on the Queens line.
It makes sense to extend the G train a few stops farther into Brooklyn so G riders can transfer to the R and either the N or M at 4 Av. What significance is there to the Smith/9th Street Station that G trains should terminate there?
(Other than that its the tallest station in the system & has a great view of Brooklyn & Manhattan.)