|
|
| Re: Why New Yorkers Insisted On A ''Worse'' Subway Map (1492758) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why New Yorkers Insisted On A ''Worse'' Subway Map |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Nov 14 02:01:38 2018, in response to Re: Why New Yorkers Insisted On A ''Worse'' Subway Map, posted by BusRider on Tue Nov 13 17:02:03 2018. Prior to the changes, the 1 and 3 hared the same car fleet and those cars were maintained and inspected at 240 St barn. That meant if a 3 train was due for either inspection or repair it had to operate light to 96 St, change ends and operate light to 240 St. By changing the south terminal of the 3 to New Lots, the #3 fleet could have its own barn at N/Lts and the #1 would only have to deal with its own cars. There was also some mixing of the 2 and 5 fleets between E180 St and 239 St barns which was resolved by having all #5 cars inspected at E180 and all #2 cars inspected at 239 St. Now each car fleet had its own separate maintenance facility. Up until the change, the 5s went to Utica and the 4s went to Flatbush except during middays, early evenings and midnights. With then exception of running the midnight 4s to N/Lots the ret of the lines were originally to remain the same. I recommended that the south terminals of the 4 and 5 also be swapped so that the 4s would always operate all the way down E/Pky to either Utica or N/Lots and the 5s would operate to Flatbush whenever they operated into Bkln. Fortunately the upper management had enough sense to agree with me and so the 4s and 5s swapped terminals to match. An additional plus to my idea was that if a 2 or 5 had to be swapped at Flatbush due to a delay, it would be easier to return the trains to their home routes on the West Farms branch rather than from Woodlawn. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|