|
|
| Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) (1417474) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1418150) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Dec 2 07:00:38 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by randyo on Wed Nov 30 14:44:35 2016. It's hard to believe such stupidity still happens... In the 70s I get it- every dumbass thing imaginable took place. I thought they'd learned... |
|
|
| (1418151) | |
Re: Overnight R Train to Whitehall? Why? |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Dec 2 07:02:43 2016, in response to Re: Overnight R Train to Whitehall? Why?, posted by randyo on Tue Nov 29 15:49:41 2016. I believe there were 2 rounds of service cuts- in August of '76, the EE and K went away, while the CC and E switched out going to the Rockaways.The late night shuttles on the BMT and local service on the A and F started up sometime in 1977- I'm not sure exactly when. |
|
|
| (1418153) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Dec 2 07:27:12 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Michael549 on Fri Dec 2 01:09:35 2016. Would you believe that if he could he'd send the M-train to the Bronx!Some train ought to go to all 4 boroughs again, right? :) |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1418160) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Dec 2 09:00:22 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Michael549 on Fri Dec 2 01:09:35 2016. Not to the Bronx, but I think 145 on weekends......pretty close......but he probably would want it sent to 161 as extra service for weekend Yankee games.....there, The Bronx. |
|
|
| (1418178) | |
Re: Overnight R Train to Whitehall? Why? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 2 15:12:32 2016, in response to Re: Overnight R Train to Whitehall? Why?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Nov 30 23:05:34 2016. V is fine for that hypothetical service too. As long as 6th Ave service to 71st/Continental and 96th & 2nd are not both called M. |
|
|
| (1418205) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Dec 2 18:08:43 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by MainR3664 on Fri Dec 2 06:56:59 2016. Not while the R-32s and 42s are still running there! No clearance in the Montague tube. |
|
|
| (1418207) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Dec 2 18:10:56 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by MainR3664 on Fri Dec 2 07:00:38 2016. The reason people don’t learn is because there are insufficient consequences for malfeasance and/or nonfeasance. Incarcerate the incompetents and you will see how quickly they smarten up. |
|
|
| (1418208) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 2 18:11:33 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Joe V on Wed Nov 30 06:49:32 2016. These cars are basically the bandaide for the foolish removal of the R44 cars,and yhe massive over scraping of the stainless 60s R units.It simplely will Not be enough. |
|
|
| (1418218) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:12:50 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by MainR3664 on Fri Dec 2 06:56:59 2016. Easier said than done - find the equipment. |
|
|
| (1418219) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Dec 2 19:18:07 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:12:50 2016. That's what people here said about extending the Q to 96th and putting in the W, yet somehow they found the equipment. |
|
|
| (1418220) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:22:51 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by AlM on Fri Dec 2 19:18:07 2016. They stole one or two 600's trainsets from places such as Concourse, Jamaica, Pitkin, 207th, and CIY.For 480's trainsets, there are slim pickings and few options with such NTT's, while 222 R32's + 50 R42's become just 250 R179's. |
|
|
| (1418223) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Dec 2 19:36:54 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:22:51 2016. So they are scrapping the r32s and R42s immediately when the R179s come into service? |
|
|
| (1418225) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:42:31 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by AlM on Fri Dec 2 19:36:54 2016. The R42's yes. The R32's ranks will be thinned. I have not heard a definitive word of how many and where the survivors would go, except for the stubborn "B" train rumor, and maybe some for the G. |
|
|
| (1418253) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Dec 2 22:49:14 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by GojiMet86 on Thu Dec 1 21:00:49 2016. Don't know when I've been so blueDon't know what's come over you You've found someone new and Don't it make my brown R blue |
|
|
| (1418270) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Dec 3 07:43:25 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Joe V on Fri Dec 2 19:42:31 2016. Then maybe they shouldn't be thinning the ranks of the R32s so fast. Maybe keep all 222 remaining ones in service until there are a substantial number of R211s in service. |
|
|
| (1418294) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Dec 3 10:21:50 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Dec 3 07:43:25 2016. I agree. We'll see.It will also be very hard to keep the SIR R44's going until the R211 version is built for them. Be a good option to send 20 R46 or R68 cars there to cover all off-peak service until then. |
|
|
| (1418336) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Sat Dec 3 14:48:29 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Nov 30 10:02:32 2016. There is zero reason to run what is in essence an extension of existing (J) service as a separate line necessitating a transfer. I too have suggested extending the J to 95st all times as a replacement for R in Brooklyn (primarily to improve service reliability in Queens). There's no need to create a separate service |
|
|
| (1418386) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 19:05:31 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by shiznit1987 on Sat Dec 3 14:48:29 2016. NO R-32s OR 42sALLOWED IN THE MONTAGUE ST TUNNEL!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1418472) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Dec 4 10:24:36 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by randyo on Sat Dec 3 19:05:31 2016. Right:That is the issue. This would obviously be an all-R160 production. You could relegate the R-32s (and R-42s if kept) to the (M) since that does not come near Montague under any circumstances. |
|
|
| (1418485) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 4 12:14:34 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Dec 4 10:24:36 2016. R32/42 do not have updated M signage.I doubt if they would want to spend the money (production & man hours to re-equip) |
|
|
| (1418490) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Dec 4 12:23:42 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 4 12:14:34 2016. The R32's are not good performers anymore. I don't think they want them on the 53rd STreet or Queens Blvd lines. |
|
|
| (1418594) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Dec 5 07:33:11 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by randyo on Fri Dec 2 18:08:43 2016. Oh, right. What stupidity..!!! |
|
|
| (1418595) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Dec 5 07:37:20 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Dec 3 07:43:25 2016. And expand the R179 order. This would allow for an increase in service...I think a service through De Kalb (whether West End, Brighton, etc can be determined later) to Nassau Street would be worthwhile during rush hours. |
|
|
| (1418596) | |
Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K) |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Dec 5 07:39:22 2016, in response to Re: Bringing the ''Brown R'' back as (K), posted by shiznit1987 on Sat Dec 3 14:48:29 2016. So what happens to the R in your scenario? Cut back to 71-CTL-Whitehall? If so, is the 24/7, or just outside of peak ? |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
