|
|
| Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? (1348110) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1348685) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 20 16:16:17 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Apr 20 10:46:50 2015. I mentioned in another post that it might be a good idea to extend the midnight 3 to 34 St. |
|
|
| (1348706) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 20 21:02:34 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Lance52 on Sat Apr 18 12:23:05 2015. Agreed. If there's ever going to be a new service to/from Nassau St in southern Brooklyn, it should not replace the R. An extended J should be there just to supplement the R during the busiest travel periods, nothing more. |
|
|
| (1348707) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 20 21:14:00 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 16 21:33:06 2015. Your new R service will have the same problems the pre-May 1987 R had, which is the lack of a direct access to a yard. And your W service will have the same problems merging with the N and Q that the current R has.Basically, you've got the same services as pre-June 2010, but with different letters. Your N would be the new R (other than being express), your R would be the new W and your W would be the new N (other than being all local and running via the West End Line). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1348709) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 20 21:24:52 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Fri Apr 17 02:47:14 2015. So what's going to serve Whitehall St and the Broadway BMT from 4th Avenue if the R is rerouted to Nassau St?Why not just have a few J trains originate at Broadway Jct during the rush that extend past Broad St into southern Brooklyn, onto the 4th Ave local tracks and terminate at 9th Ave or Bay Pkwy? |
|
|
| (1348730) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 21 02:13:19 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 20 21:02:34 2015. Ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1348731) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 21 02:18:56 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 20 21:14:00 2015. Wrong. |
|
|
| (1348746) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Apr 21 09:14:38 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 21 02:18:56 2015. Explain how that's wrong. |
|
|
| (1348747) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Apr 21 09:15:10 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 21 02:13:19 2015. Explain how it's ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1348749) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Apr 21 09:38:26 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 18 14:01:37 2015. But the J would have the same issue as well, maybe even more so because it doesn't go north of Delancey St. At least some of those riders headed beyond Canal can take the R uptown (like to Prince or 8th streets - both very busy stations). Can't do that on an extended J without transferring either at Pacific, DeKalb or Canal. |
|
|
| (1348862) | |
Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Tue Apr 21 23:07:06 2015, in response to Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 19 07:04:47 2015. But the question is: How many more people would ride the L line coming from Manhattan beyond Atlantic (to Canarsie), compared with the # of riders on the Jamaica line (local) continuing to Canarsie? |
|
|
| (1348879) | |
Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 22 02:28:58 2015, in response to Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station, posted by jabrams on Tue Apr 21 23:07:06 2015. I suspect quite a lot would.It also would eliminate the need to transfer from the Broadway-Brooklyn line at Broadway Junction to the (L), which has as I remember some narrow platforms that are very high up (and those looking for Canarsie outside of peak times would be able to do a cross-platform transfer from the (L) to the (Z) in this format and outside of peak times that would still be a one-seat ride). Main purpose of this would be for the (L) to be more easily able to serve the much more heavily ridden portion of the line between Atlantic Avenue and 8th Avenue while those in Canarsie would pick up a full-time service to Manhattan with a (usually) cross-platform transfer at Atlantic Avenue while in non-peak hours usually having TWO lines operating on the Canarsie portion. |
|
|
| (1348903) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynTrain on Wed Apr 22 08:30:53 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by Lance52 on Sun Apr 19 08:45:38 2015. J ran great to Bay Ridge after September 11th. Was the best service Bay Ridge ever had. |
|
|
| (1348930) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 22 11:10:21 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Apr 21 09:38:26 2015. Is there a way of knowing that significant numbers of people from Bay Ridge actually ride through to Broadway Local stations north of Canal? |
|
|
| (1348984) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 16:25:19 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 22 11:10:21 2015. Probably by doing an origin/destination survey among the passengers. NYCT staff would hand survey cards to the passengers at the stations at 4 Av stations in the Bay Ridge/Sunset park area which would be stamped and self addressed for easy return or also able to be turned in to any station agent, or possibly dedicated “ballot boxes” at various stations on the system. |
|
|
| (1348989) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 22 16:54:52 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by randyo on Wed Apr 22 16:25:19 2015. Good idea, but those wouldn't necessarily dictate the methods passengers use. Especially now that there is a Bridge service that runs Broadway Local (the N), R passengers may try to transfer for the N, especially at 59th St if traveling north, figuring there must be a net savings. Passengers at stations from Union to 25th Sts may not be as inclined to make such a move. But also a lot may have to do with seeing the train across the platform. "If I see an N at Pacific. . ." or "if I see a Q at DeKalb" (which, yes, runs express, but can be used for transfer to an N/R at Union Sq for points north). |
|
|
| (1349251) | |
Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 23 18:49:42 2015, in response to Re: Time to consider extending late-night (R) train to Whitehall Street?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Apr 22 16:54:52 2015. Passengers would be able to note that on their survey forms. |
|
|
| (1350464) | |
Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri May 1 15:19:53 2015, in response to Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 19 07:04:47 2015. Sorry for the very late response here. I was actually all set to respond by saying that if your Z proposal can indeed allow the L to better serve the very heavily-used stops west of Broadway Jct, then I'd be inclined to agree with it. But then the MTA released its 2014 ridership stats, which showed major increases in ridership systemwide. Ridership on the L is continuing to climb, no surprise there. But what I did find rather interesting is that most of the "less busy" stations after Broadway Jct, do get decent ridership. Rockaway Pkwy, alone, got over 13,500 weekday riders in 2014.I just think that if the L were truncated at a rebuilt Atlantic Ave, even with a cross-platform connection to a Canarsie-Jamaica Ave Z, it would inconvenience more riders than it would benefit. You also have to remember that the L runs much more frequently than the current Z service, and would probably run more frequently than the Z service you're proposing, simply because that Z service wouldn't be able to maintain the same headways the L currently runs on, while interacting with the J and M in northern Brooklyn. By the way, how does this Z service benefit 4th Ave local riders, whom you mentioned in your original post? You have this service terminating at Broad St except during late nights. How would that benefit the R line? |
|
|
| (1350518) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 2 06:32:09 2015, in response to Re: Atlantic Avenue (L) Station, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri May 1 15:19:53 2015. The idea is, it would go to Broad. There is not enough room at DeKalb to allow it to run outside of late nights to the 4th Avenue line as has been noted elsewhere. |
|
|
| (1350519) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 2 06:41:12 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 2 06:32:09 2015. Also neglected in the other post to note concerning the (L)'s truncation:The cross-platform transfer would be an inconvenience, but it would be a relatively minor one compared to being able to have two lines stopping there and making for a much easier transfer to/from the Broadway-Brooklyn line there than at Broadway Junction and reducing the number of people transferring at Broadway Junction. There also can be a limited number of thru (L) trains that run to/from Rockaway Parkway (and some put-ins from East 105). Late nights and other times when capacity is NOT an issue, both the (L) and (Z) would terminate at Rockaway Parkway. Also, during rush hours if you also rebuild the Snediker Avenue platform you can have some (L) service terminate on that platform. |
|
|
| (1350544) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat May 2 12:50:54 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat May 2 06:41:12 2015. There would have to still be some L service going all the way to Rockaway Pkwy, because there would still be plenty of demand for it and because the current rush hour headways need to be maintained. Even a Z train expanded into its own line won't be able to run on the L's current headways without impacting the J or M. |
|
|
| (1350578) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sat May 2 17:00:02 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat May 2 12:50:54 2015. L has CBTC, but R160's or R32's don't, preventing "Z's from running easily to Rockaway Parkway. |
|
|
| (1350579) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 2 17:08:55 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by jabrams on Sat May 2 17:00:02 2015. We all saw video last summer, or the summer before, of R32's headed to Canarsie for a wash. |
|
|
| (1350801) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sun May 3 22:19:24 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Joe V on Sat May 2 17:08:55 2015. But that is an out of service train. I guess special provisions are made for that single train, garbage train, work trains, etc. But I don't think you want to do that for every other or 1 out of 3 trains all day. |
|
|
| (1350813) | |
VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Sun May 3 23:20:55 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Joe V on Sat May 2 17:08:55 2015. East of Broadway Junction, the wayside signals remain. |
|
|
| (1350817) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 4 02:41:31 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by jabrams on Sat May 2 17:00:02 2015. I was thinking in terms of 160's running on the (Z) exclusively in this setup. |
|
|
| (1350818) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 4 02:48:26 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon May 4 02:41:31 2015. no. |
|
|
| (1350824) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Mon May 4 04:46:21 2015, in response to VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Dj Hammers on Sun May 3 23:20:55 2015. 5 drooling stars out of 5 drooling stars for da video and da R32.chud1. :)..... |
|
|
| (1350836) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Mon May 4 10:39:01 2015, in response to VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Dj Hammers on Sun May 3 23:20:55 2015. AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1350841) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Mon May 4 11:49:21 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by chicagomotorman on Mon May 4 10:39:01 2015. Wouldn't that train normally have to stop at Atlantic to punch for the yard? |
|
|
| (1350842) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by chicagomotorman on Mon May 4 11:55:55 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by jabrams on Mon May 4 11:49:21 2015. I don't know, I live in Chicago. |
|
|
| (1350857) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 15:04:37 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by jabrams on Mon May 4 11:49:21 2015. Tower probably saw the shiny a mile away and lined it up. :) |
|
|
| (1350876) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon May 4 17:38:40 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 15:04:37 2015. ENY Master Tower can’t see that far. |
|
|
| (1350884) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 18:14:28 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by randyo on Mon May 4 17:38:40 2015. Didn't think so. But a 32 running out there must have been something that was known to be coming. I remember the punchbox there, train didn't stop so it must have been punched up somewhere. |
|
|
| (1350906) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 4 20:20:20 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 18:14:28 2015. Damn, those R-32s still look good. |
|
|
| (1350907) | |
Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 4 20:22:08 2015, in response to Re: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Dj Hammers on Mon May 4 02:48:26 2015. sZemp needs to get some ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZs.:) |
|
|
| (1350913) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 20:42:26 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 4 20:20:20 2015. Pity they're no longer the same 32's I used to work. But stainless can look good if you clean it every now and then. |
|
|
| (1350954) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Tue May 5 11:40:49 2015, in response to VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Dj Hammers on Sun May 3 23:20:55 2015. Just finished taking a bath at Canarsie. |
|
|
| (1350987) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue May 5 18:11:29 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon May 4 20:20:20 2015. They must have a high nickel content to be that shiny. |
|
|
| (1351072) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed May 6 11:41:07 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Joe V on Tue May 5 18:11:29 2015. Well, when I was in chemistry class in high school, we were taught that stainless steel was “chrome steel” presumably meaning that the stainless steel alloy contains chrome to make it shiny. When the R-32s were first delivered while they were relatively shiny, but nota much as after GOH except for the last 4 3946 thru 3949 which were also the 4 R-32s with the Pioneer III trucks. Those 4 cars were at least as shiny as the post GOH 32s and when the TA asked the Budd Co what they did to make those cars so shiny, the company declined to comment possibly fearing some sort of reprisals for not following contract specs to the letter. I notice that the R-68s and 68As don’t have quite an attractive look to them as the R-46s having a sort of yellowish cast to them and not being as shiny as the R-46s and even the 44s. |
|
|
| (1351073) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed May 6 11:49:43 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by randyo on Wed May 6 11:41:07 2015. Today's stainless cars look like the dull side of aluminum foil. |
|
|
| (1351127) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 6 21:12:52 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 4 20:42:26 2015. Yeah, they used to make that CPW dash look easy. Never will forget seeing that R-32 Ted streak past 81st n/b effortlessly. |
|
|
| (1351134) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed May 6 21:58:04 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by randyo on Wed May 6 11:41:07 2015. check out Wikipedia. There are numerous alloys called stainless steel; some are magnetic, some not. Most contain various percentages of nickel and chrome. Side note: SS electrical switch/outlet plates are made both magnetic and non-magnetic although I do not understand what difference it makes. |
|
|
| (1351141) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 6 23:30:32 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed May 6 21:12:52 2015. Yes they did. Fortunately they didn't make it to 88 MPH or you would have seen some serious ...
|
|
|
| (1351240) | |
Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Fri May 8 18:58:30 2015, in response to Re: VIDEO: R32 on the L - Was: Making the (Z) a full-time route, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed May 6 23:30:32 2015. I wonder what the fastest recorded speed of the BMT multis was. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
