|
|
| Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard (538509) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (539375) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 15:07:00 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Dec 23 14:26:23 2007. TA does a poor job of maintaining such things. Many years ago, I predicted that the escalators at 63rd and Lexington would never function properly, and I was right. Too right. There are a total of eight escalators at that station, and it's not uncommon to find three not working at any given time. That's why I know the TA will never be able to automate trains. If they can't keep escalators or walkways working, I don't think they can keep trains moving without someone there to move them. |
|
|
| (539409) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Dec 23 17:38:12 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 11:36:25 2007. shouldn't you be calling the (V) the (FF)? |
|
|
| (539425) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Dec 23 18:07:52 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sun Dec 23 12:06:12 2007. Also i think the reason why it takes the R so long to come is because it is slow and the route is very longThis seems plausible -- a large number of stops is one of the main factors leading to bunching. I'd also suggest the large number of merges/demerges and the poor terminal layout at Continental cannot possibly help. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (539430) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Sun Dec 23 18:11:16 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:44:31 2007. You're missing the point. This is not K.C. Big factor here: People coming from Brooklyn headed out along Queens Boulevard. This is an established routing. Lives have been constructed around the availability of that routing. Especially at night. F.I., many Brooklyn folk work in the hospitals along the Boulevard. These people need the one train ride the G offers. Many people are using the route to connect to dozens of bus lines in Brooklyn, Queens and the Long Island buses at Jamaica.Big city like this needs transit services not geared to C.B.D. destinations. The G is such a line. Else, we might as well be Kansas City ourselves. |
|
|
| (539432) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Dec 23 18:14:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:19:49 2007. Extending the G to Forest Hills off hours is not protested by anybody.You cannot outvote anything that has no detractors. |
|
|
| (539433) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Dec 23 18:16:21 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 23 14:44:31 2007. It is also silly to assume that providing Queens Plaza service would necessarily require additional crews.Perhaps one crew, but it likely could also be covered with just existing crews. |
|
|
| (539434) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Dec 23 18:17:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 13:55:52 2007. I find this stance of yours altogether puzzling when, as I recall, you support the present practice of sending 5 trains to/from the East Side IRT to Brooklyn college and sending 3 trains to/from the West Side IRT to New Lots Av. Because no doubt operations would likely go smoother throughout if as many West Side IRT trains as possible went to Brooklyn College.There is a simple reason for this: what would be done with all the (4) and (5) trains otherwise? a) turn them all at Utica: does not work -- it's the A Divsion version of Continental b) send some of them to New Lots somehow instead of the (3), in various versions: does not work -- the crossovers are all in the wrong places |
|
|
| (539437) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Dec 23 18:23:44 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 11:22:02 2007. But you cannot tear down a subway tunnel!There's always the Cincinnati solution... |
|
|
| (539448) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 18:37:57 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Dec 23 18:17:02 2007. Why doesn't a combination of (a) and (b) work to turn most 2 and 3 trains at Brooklyn College, with their remainder plus 4 and 5 trains being turned on the other branch? |
|
|
| (539457) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 18:47:31 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by SMAZ on Sun Dec 23 17:38:12 2007. I guess you could if you wanted to. But the GG and the RR were *always* Locals, when people think (F) they think EXPRESS. It is even *called* the Sixth Avenue Express, although it would be more correct to say that it was the Express to Sixth Avenue. But back then 14th and 23rd streets *WERE* EXPRESS stops on Sixth Avenue.ROAR |
|
|
| (539458) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 18:47:46 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by error46146 on Sun Dec 23 12:06:12 2007. Today I rode it, and it accelerated so slowly, on the (G), I swear it accelerated a bit faster. |
|
|
| (539486) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 23 19:41:51 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Dec 23 01:08:19 2007. Which equipment runs on the G once CIYD supplies the cars remains to be seen. Since the cars will be assigned to CI, the only way you'll see R46's there are if they are reassigned to CI, which is doubtful. |
|
|
| (539488) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 23 19:46:24 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 01:19:31 2007. Say, that's confrontational! But I dig it . . . |
|
|
| (539489) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 23 19:46:50 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 22 11:54:08 2007. Do you work for the MTA? If not, then don't talk like you do. |
|
|
| (539491) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Dec 23 19:48:11 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Dec 22 21:21:40 2007. The (GG) route is ripe for automationGreat. More money for less performance. Automation hasn't saved the Washington Metro. |
|
|
| (539504) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 23 20:05:52 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007. "No Crosstown rider heading to a destination in Manhattan (which is a lot of them) benefits from the connection to the (R) at 4th Avenue."And where does the  go?
|
|
|
| (539522) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Dec 23 20:37:56 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 18:37:57 2007. Why doesn't a combination of (a) and (b) work to turn most 2 and 3 trains at Brooklyn College, with their remainder plus 4 and 5 trains being turned on the other branch?Because you'd inevitably run into one or more of these problems: a) still having the merge with the local at Rogers, before the Flatbush branch has diverged b) the fumigation of trains in the eastbound express platform of Utica Av station; there isn't even any way of switching the follower onto the local until after the station c) massively overserving New Lots* * along with gaps in the Lex Express service, unless platform extensions over the tracks were built at Nostrand Av and at Kingston Av, this too presuming that Flatbush could handle the entire 7th Av Express service. Yes, it sucks, but any solution is going to be some sort of construction project. |
|
|
| (539533) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 20:51:50 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Dec 23 19:41:51 2007. Hey! Wait a minute...I don't recall somebody in the know to say that the yard would be switched. The LION presumes that the cars will remain with the Jamaica yard. ROAR |
|
|
| (539536) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 20:56:54 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 23 20:05:52 2007. Doesn't matter where the (R) goes.What matters is there are better connections elsewhere. ROAR |
|
|
| (539582) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 23 21:39:08 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 20:56:54 2007. It sort of does. The goes to Manhattan, which disproves his point about the being useless to Manhattan-bound commuters.
|
|
|
| (539632) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 22:36:43 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Dec 22 15:47:10 2007. Not too much longer than the run from Church Av to CI Yd. Of course, some trains could be laid up in Church Av Yd itself and that just might be able to store sufficient service depending on train length. The only question would then be which yard would have the primary responsibility for inspecting and maintaining the rolling stock for the G Line. Jamaica Yd could still retain primary rsponsibility for the car equipment since the only time it would have to be use would be for inspections or maintenance. It wouldn't be too much of a difference from the 3 odd W intervals that are put in from and lay up to CIYd now. |
|
|
| (539639) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:49:45 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Michael549 on Sun Dec 23 12:58:46 2007. You know..I use to make a big deal about the service cut.Now..the ONLY things I want restored is service to Church avenue..longer trains..and a increase in TPH. What I find as A REAL SHAME is the fact that the MTA want to schedule the so called "improvements" to the line A YEAR FROM NOW...while all the others take place during the Spring... Why? Does the changes hang on the new rolling stock being placed in service..or the rebuilding of the viaduct..or BOTH? Or is it the MTA's indifference..? |
|
|
| (539641) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 22:51:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Dec 23 20:51:50 2007. Actually, when the G was shortlined at Ct Sq, there was talk in the TA about having all G put ins and layups from the south end and having CIYd supply R-68 equipment to the line so that the line could run OPTO on weekends which it does now with R-46s anyhow. At the last minute, for whatever reason, the TA opted to let the G remain in Jam Yd. When the line is extended to Church Av, a change may be looked at again. |
|
|
| (539644) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Dec 23 22:51:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:49:45 2007. You also want the R-160 on the (J). You think that it is "sad" that they aren't on there yet, even though there's likely a very good reason why. |
|
|
| (539647) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 23 22:54:26 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:49:45 2007. Maybe it's related to the completion of the new crew facilities at Church Avenue as well as the realignment of the fleets to meet the new service needs. |
|
|
| (539650) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:56:49 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:09:36 2007. The G DOES SERVE POLYTECHNIC[located on Jay st]..via a transfer at Hoyt St to the A/C lines.City Tech is RIGHT Down the street[a block away across from the Court House]from "Polytech". I had evening and evening classes at City Tech. |
|
|
| (539652) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:57:24 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:09:36 2007. The G DOES SERVE POLYTECHNIC[located on Jay st]..via a transfer at Hoyt St to the A/C lines.City Tech is RIGHT Down the street[a block away across from the Court House]from "Polytech". I had morning[on my off days] and evening classes at City Tech. |
|
|
| (539653) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 22:58:28 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 23 22:54:26 2007. Thank you. |
|
|
| (539655) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 23:00:10 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 22:36:43 2007. Does CI inspect any R-46's at the moment? Even with all those F trains that are down there, I'll bet all the repairs are done at Jamaica Yard.Yes, it's a relatively long distance from Court Sq to Jamaica Yard just for inspections, but no different than J's having to travel all the way to ENY for work. |
|
|
| (539660) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 23 23:03:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 23:00:10 2007. At the present time, all R-46s are assigned to Jamaica Shop. It was considered shifting some R-46s to Coney Island but they have too many different car types now. |
|
|
| (539675) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 23:31:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 23 13:55:52 2007. While Ron DOES have a good heart..it bothers me that he believes the MTA can do no wrong..This "tude" is completely WRONG... They HAVE and WILL MAKE MISTAKES...misjudge..and do things that the riders will find STUPID. And I DO mean RIDERS..not "RAILFANS" as he loves to throw about... |
|
|
| (539676) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 23:32:08 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 23 22:54:26 2007. I don't know how much "completion" would be needed at Church Av since it has crew facilities from the days when it was the only terminal for the F Line in Bkln until 1954. |
|
|
| (539682) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 23:40:06 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Train Dude on Sun Dec 23 23:03:03 2007. So if the G's no longer go to CTL in service, they'll just have to send the G's to Jamaica Yard after service. That may require switchmen, which is a four letter word these days. I can see some crews being scheduled to do a lay-up after their trips, and signing out at Jamaica Yard instead. |
|
|
| (539712) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Dec 24 00:08:54 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 23:32:08 2007. New facilities are being built. |
|
|
| (539758) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 24 01:27:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Edwards! on Sun Dec 23 23:31:02 2007. "While Ron DOES have a good heart..it bothers me that he believes the MTA can do no wrong.."You've said that. I haven't. "And I DO mean RIDERS..not "RAILFANS" as he loves to throw about..." Ther trouble is that it is the foamers who post here; the passengers, for the most part, do not. They should. |
|
|
| (539773) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Dec 24 02:17:03 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 13:43:53 2007. At the risk of being shouted down by G-train riders, it is highly doubtful that the TA is going to restore G-train service at any time of the day/night/weekend to the Queens Plaza station.Given the previous discussions about G-train service, the history of service changes and related routes - the above is my honest assessment. I believe that I am being respectful when I speak honestly. I believe that others will have their own honest assessments and thoughts - it's all fair. When I lived in Brooklyn, the G-train was a route that I could use to get to/from work, school, etc. The operations of the G route were a concern of mine. I agree that many riders are critical of the G-train service. I am sure that there are plenty of riders who are critical of the service that they recieve. I believe that there is something called the "public interest" which rises above each of our own purely personal self-interested reasons and viewpoints. There are times when each of us can see that something is "good" even if we do not personally benefit by it, or we can see that something is "bad" even if we are not negatively affected by it. I do not mean to be condescending when I talk about transit fans, I am a transit fan myself. I am sure that each one of us at some point wished that he could "snap his/her finger" and things would be the way that we wanted them. Reality demands that something more than snapping one's finger is needed to get something changed. Sometimes no matter how much we want a wholesale change what could be accomplished was a small change. I believe that there are many people who would prefer the G-train to a) become more frequent, b) to be restored to the route that many were comfortable with, c) to be extended to Church Avenue, d) use full-length trains, and e) to not be treated as a step-child route by the TA. Frankly I have no real objections to any of those ideas. If I could "snap my finger" the whole transit situation for the region would be much different. We know that Santa Claus does not exist, that there are no genies, and David Copperfield has yet to magically conjure up a whole subway line. Living and working in the world of the real and the possible may be kind of dull, but life is tough and there is rent to pay. I think it is a sign of respect to be honest. Honest does not mean to be condescending, rude, arrogant, or a "know it all" -- and I hope that I have not been any of that. There is a great deal about transit and transportation that I am still learning. And yes, I know I can long-winded (smile). ------------------ From a previous message: "I find this stance of yours altogether puzzling when, as I recall, you support the present practice of sending 5 trains to/from the East Side IRT to Brooklyn college and sending 3 trains to/from the West Side IRT to New Lots Av. Because no doubt operations would likely go smoother throughout if as many West Side IRT trains as possible went to Brooklyn College." Given the history of this transit line and the arrangement of routes as reflected in the transit maps, given the arrangement of the track switches and stations, given the amount of terminals in which to terminate and relay trains, given the representation of the collected intelligence of the people who actually run the trains and operate the stations -- just how many completely unexplored variations on a theme do you actually think exist for this situation? Unless somebody is going to come up with a great deal of money to rebuild or reconfigure the Rogers Avenue junction - and to keep the trains running while this is done - the current situation is not going to change. It does not matter what I think - the essential facts on the ground have not changed one bit. The current situation is the best that can be achieved given everything. ------------------- Mike - do you think that the TA is right in setting up G-train service this way? I do not work for the TA, and nothing I say will have any influence on them in a major way. The problem is with the word, "right" - presumes some kind of answer that will satisfy everyone of its truth. A more honest answer is that it depends. It depends upon the circumstances, the goals to be met, the resources available to support the goals, outside and other events affect the situation. I have yet to see a contract that obligates anyone to support the TA in all of its actions. I do suggest that we learn as much as we can about a situation so that we can be honest and considerate in our suggestions and assessments. -------------------- Mike - The relay operation in question has been done in the past, as well as during recent Sundays, hasn't it? Actually there are separate relay operations, the V-train, and the G-train. The weekend V-train relay operation uses a layup track between the express tracks to return tracks to Manhattan. In this operation only one express track is briefly blocked while a switch movement occurs. The traffic on the local tracks continue without interruption. The G-train relay operations requires the Queens bound G-train to cross from the local to the express track, and from there to a center layup track. So two tracks are blocked during this movement. Once the G-train is on the center layup track, it has cross a switch to the Manhattan-bound express track, and then cross another switch to the Manhattan bound local track - again two tracks are blocked for this movement. The comparison to the #5 to Brooklyn College is that th #5 train must cross the path and block both the express and local track for its movement. Given the situation as noted above, this is one of the better options. Can the TA do this kind of movement for the G-train, sure they can - they do not want to. They have a valid reason for denying any change - right now they have a situation that has no interference of any kind. No one has yet figured out a reason or rationale that would convince the TA to change its practice, that would be in ITS interest. Mike |
|
|
| (539790) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Mon Dec 24 03:19:57 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Sun Dec 23 23:40:06 2007. They can always lay them up at Church or Culver YD. They have a RCI from JYD there. If the train has to get shoped for Inspection they can hire someone to lay it up or put two trains together at Culver Yd and make it an F Train to be a scheduled LU at 179. |
|
|
| (539798) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Dec 24 03:34:05 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 22:51:10 2007. Technically couldn't the G just be based from Av X since a majority of that yard is filled w/F's R46's? |
|
|
| (539812) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Dec 24 05:49:35 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by checkthedoorlight on Sat Dec 22 18:48:58 2007. And if you combined the M and V trains into one, then you'd probably have both trains (R and M-V) running 24/7 up Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (539871) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 10:22:34 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Dec 24 03:34:05 2007. Don't think this can be done. The G can't be based out of Av X/CIY unless the repairs and inspections are done at Coney Island Yard. |
|
|
| (539876) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Dec 24 10:33:52 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 10:22:34 2007. Perhaps maybe it will??A "Change in Section" perhaps? |
|
|
| (539890) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 10:53:52 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Mon Dec 24 10:33:52 2007. Well, I suppose we can go over some factors that would tend to favor Coney Island Yard over Jamaica, so far as I, based on my layperson observations, can tell.pro-Coney Island: probably, there's more free space in Brooklyn for maintenance and storage relative to Queens, especially at the Av X and Church Av facilities con-Coney Island: the R46 trainsets have been maintained at Jamaica for many years, now, and also, to add another type of car to the mix there makes the specialization job there tougher. pro-Jamaica: current expertise in maintaining R46 cars is already in-house con-Jamaica: it seems like the area is stuffed with cars, and under the pending service change, cars assigned to the G route would have to go roughly as far to Jamaica on a non-revenue run as to Coney Island On the balancing of these factors, I still tend to give Jamaica the edge, since things seem to militate in its favor. (Although obviously other considerations could tilt the calculus). But if one changes up the scenario a bit, by moving various car classes' assignments around, as must happen, anyway, over the next few years, that introduces a lot of unpredictability into the decision, and on these observations, I don't think one could tell one way or the other. |
|
|
| (539893) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 24 10:55:47 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by randyo on Sun Dec 23 23:32:08 2007. Back then it was the (D) Line! ☺I sure hope that they make it a showcase crews quarters with clean well lighted bathrooms with plenty of paper in them. ROAR |
|
|
| (539898) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:07:30 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 10:22:34 2007. I guess anything can be done. But the travel time to run light from Court Sq to JYD is not significant enough to reassigne G's to another yard. If this is all approved, look for some G motormen to have a layup and sign-out at Jamaica Yard. |
|
|
| (539899) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Dec 24 11:07:40 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Dec 24 10:53:52 2007. Heres another "Hint" has anybody "guessed" over by Stillwell why they are cleaning out that marsh?? |
|
|
| (539910) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:25:23 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Mon Dec 24 11:07:40 2007. Toxic waste removal? |
|
|
| (539912) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 24 11:38:06 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Railman718 on Mon Dec 24 11:07:40 2007. To enlarge Coney Island Yard?Don't they have to restore marsh somewhere else to compensate (federal and state law)? |
|
|
| (539921) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Dec 24 11:48:29 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Dec 23 14:14:08 2007. The many people using Queens Plaza over Court Square on the weekends when the (G) serves there are not foamers.I didn't see many people doing that during my Museum train rides. All of the G trains I've seen weren't crowded either. |
|
|
| (539926) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:53:36 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Dec 24 11:48:29 2007. G can get pretty crowded at certain location. Hoyt-Schermerhorn picks up lots of people. Metropolitan for connections with the L is also a popular spot. G needs a shorter headway during Rush Hours, and maybe midday too. |
|
|
| (539930) | |
Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Dec 24 12:13:02 2007, in response to Re: (G) cut from Queens Boulevard, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Dec 24 11:53:36 2007. The (GG) needs a six minute headway in the day times until say 10pm and then never more than a 20 minute headway later at night.All subway trains require a minimum 6 minute headway to be useful. ROAR |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
