Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 4 of 9

Next Page >  

(1146614)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by subfan on Sun Mar 25 15:33:25 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sat Mar 24 15:13:00 2012.

Boston's Blue Line changes to overhead at Airport, not Maverick.

subfan

Post a New Response

(1146616)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 15:37:14 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 04:36:45 2012.

Not when St. George has them.

Again, it's extremely simple to do like the London Underground and put the rails in the stations on supports to reduce the distance between the top of the rail and the platform. There may be some clearance issues, but with the roofline of most LRVs coming a bit closer to the TOR than an R44 it should not present a major problem.

You know what seems silly? Creating extra facilities and duplicate spare-parts inventories for nonstandard equipment that can't be used elsewhere on NYCTA.

What good is having "standard" equipment when all the facilities to do the heavy repair work on that standard equipment require a costly oversized truck trip across the Verrazano to utilize them? The heavy rail option was eliminated from consideration for the North Shore line years ago. It will be either a light rail or bus rapid transit line. As such you can either choose between having effectively one rail fleet for Staten Island which maximizes commonality between the fleets for the North and South shore lines, or you can have an even smaller LRV fleet operated alongside 'standard' subway equipment with inflated O&M costs because of the need to travel across the bridge for anything Clifton cannot handle.

Post a New Response

(1146624)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 16:10:36 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 24 20:22:00 2012.

North Shore was a little of everything. It shared street car trackage, ran to an interurban terminal, interchanged freight with the Class-I's
and ran down the "L". CRT rapid transit equipment equipment on occasion saw Wisconsin.

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)


(1146629)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 25 16:21:11 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 09:13:45 2012.

High level/low level cars work quite well elsewhere,surely it could be done here. San Francisco and Karlsruhe,Germany are good examples,and this method saves a lot in construction costs,especially at minor stations. While admittedly the maintenance cost for the cars themselves would probably be higher,the capital construction costs would probably be far less.

How much money do you figure you're going to save? Realize that adding an LRV with foldable stairs adds capital cost to the car purchase, adds significant maintenance cost, and will reduce the capacity of the vehicle. If you're going to do that, you might as well build low platforms EVERYWHERE.

Post a New Response

(1146634)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 25 16:30:11 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:37:00 2012.

It isn't! And that's the beauty of ordering something like that. You can effectively create one large fleet from what otherwise would be two smaller fleets,thereby reducing O&M costs. It is the commonality with the light rail North Shore fleet which is the primary selling point ordering something along those lines for the South Shore lines

Understand that using a subway fleet for the SIR would mean that it shares commonality with a substantially larger car fleet just across the narrows. You get an even greater savings when you can order parts for 2,000 cars instead of 200. As it stands, SIR is already receiving SMS at CIYD.

But I didn't say totally grade separated. There are plenty of LRT systems which have some segment that is grade separated. What the LRT provides is flexibility in routing while a heavy rail alternative is entirely wedded to the North Shore line alignment.

My whole point about the north shore in Chicago is that if you get the power supply up off the ground, what difference does it make if its a low floor LRV or a standard subway car?

Because the North Shore Line would be unlikely to be operated with that vehicle. It'd be operated with a 70% low floor,catenary powered LRV similar to those used by NJT just north of there.

Then maybe it should share a fleet with NJT...

Post a New Response

(1146635)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 25 16:34:32 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Railman718 on Sat Mar 24 22:32:27 2012.

Actually, if the R32 didn't have such a high spare ratio, you would have enough cars for it.

Post a New Response

(1146641)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Mar 25 16:58:56 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Edwards! on Sat Mar 24 23:12:55 2012.

The rest head over to Pitkin for A service.
Hell hath frozen?

Post a New Response

(1146642)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Mar 25 17:01:52 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:38:25 2012.

Emphasis on perfect.

Post a New Response

(1146644)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 17:14:42 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 11:05:44 2012.

Sorry, you're quite wrong. There are both high and low platform stations for the tram-trains, as they are called. And, I've been there many times and am quite familiar with that system's operations. Have you been there?

Suggest you look at the photos on this site:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hhhumber/2387514434/

Post a New Response

(1146651)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 17:51:24 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 17:14:42 2012.

Yes, I've been there, I've ridden both the older -100Cs and the newer -100Ds, and I'm not sure what you're referring to because that's really not the case. The GT8-100C/D "high" platform capability mostly consists of having a fixed bottom step just 15 inches above TOR for the 'high' platform and a fold out step below that for on-street boarding. It is completely different from the MUNI Bredas and Cologne K5000s which are definitely capable of high/low boarding. At either high or low platforms the Karlsruhe tram-train stock does not offer level boarding and thus is not a viable alternative for pretty much any other operation in the US now that the ADA has decreed level boarding.

GT8-100D Door closing.

Post a New Response

(1146652)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 17:56:06 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 17:14:42 2012.

Sorry, you're quite wrong

Terrapin Saitta strikes again. We don't need two of them . . .

Post a New Response

(1146654)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 18:01:09 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 11:05:44 2012.

Karlsruhe tram-train uses two types of platform. Here's route S32 using a high platform at the Hauptbahnhof . . .



Post a New Response

(1146655)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 18:02:53 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 17:51:24 2012.

now that the ADA has decreed level boarding

Since when? I don't think that wheelchair lifts are going away on Metra . . .

Post a New Response

(1146656)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by chud1 on Sun Mar 25 18:08:47 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 17:51:24 2012.

Excellent video.
chud1

Post a New Response

(1146660)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:39:29 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by subfan on Sun Mar 25 15:33:25 2012.

They must have changed it at some point because I remember the change being done at Maverick.

Post a New Response

(1146661)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 18:40:24 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 11:27:30 2012.

That is EXACTLY the reason(besides cost) why it makes sense for these to be 8 car trains!
If the Eastern division needs more trains, we'd be screwed if we made all other cars in 300 foot units. With the C remaining 480 feet, if the eastern division needs more cars, they can pull from the C.

Post a New Response

(1146662)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 18:41:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by J trainloco on Sun Mar 25 16:30:11 2012.

Understand that using a subway fleet for the SIR would mean that it shares commonality with a substantially larger car fleet just across the narrows. You get an even greater savings when you can order parts for 2,000 cars instead of 200.

But what good does that commonality do when the small fleet on SI has to maintain its own parts inventory because they're completely disconnected from the rest of the network?

As it stands, SIR is already receiving SMS at CIYD.

Yes, undoubtedly at a premium for the cost to truck those cars over the Verrazano to Coney Island.

My whole point about the north shore in Chicago is that if you get the power supply up off the ground, what difference does it make if its a low floor LRV or a standard subway car?

It makes the platforms a bit easier to build. A wheelchair ramp to a 15-20 inch TOR platform occupies a lot less real estate than a ramp up to a 40+ inch platform.

Then maybe it should share a fleet with NJT...

That would be an excellent idea. But even with HBLRT being extended across the Bayonne Bridge to somewhere on SI, be it the mall, Eltingville, Travis, or Tottenville there would still be a need for a route from that southern point to St. George. If the MTA would allow NJT's contractor, URS, to provide that service within Staten Island, then it'd be fine. But the MTA is unlikely to do that. Instead it's likely that while they may allow URS to provide an interstate service, they'd push for an in-house intrastate operation. Even if the MTA gives their blessing for URS to provide the service, the UTU on the current SIR may push for the MTA to operate the line.

But even if the North Shore is a URS operated LRT, there is still a case to be made for an LRV-derivative to replace the R44s on the existing SIR.

Post a New Response

(1146663)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:44:11 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sat Mar 24 23:43:53 2012.

SEPTA uses lifts on the PCCIIs and San Diego does also.

Post a New Response

(1146665)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 18:50:04 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 17:14:42 2012.

That's new to me. Everything was low platform when they started running in the early nineties. That or my memory is wrong.

Post a New Response

(1146666)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:50:42 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 21:15:22 2012.

Not all heavy rail runs long train of NYCTS proportions. Until somewhat recently, the maximum length train on all of Boston's heavy rail lines was 4 cars.

Post a New Response

(1146667)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 18:52:37 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:39:29 2012.

I forgot exactly when but they changed it in the nineties.

Post a New Response

(1146668)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:54:59 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by WillD on Sun Mar 25 00:06:16 2012.

I probably should have been a little clearer in which part of the post I was referring to. I was only referring to the part about certain NYCTA lines as being heavy rail with OPTO not the rest of it.

Post a New Response

(1146669)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:56:32 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 18:52:37 2012.

Thanks for the info. It's been awhile since I was out that far on the line. In any even, I was just trying to point that even heavy rail can use overhead.

Post a New Response

(1146672)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:00:31 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sat Mar 24 21:53:34 2012.

They should extend the platforms to hold a full 600 ft train so that in the event of a service disruption N/O PPK, Brighton trains can access Franklin so that passengers can transfer to the IND Fulton Line to access Manhattan.

Post a New Response

(1146673)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:01:35 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:38:25 2012.

See my post. 600 ft platforms allow fro more flexibility in the event of service disruptions.

Post a New Response

(1146674)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:04:01 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:15:56 2012.

207 Barn is where most IRT cars except for the Flushing fleet are main shopped anyhow so that shouldn't be much of a problem.

Post a New Response

(1146677)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:09:19 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:20:16 2012.

You have the R-42 car numbers wrong, Those numbers reflect the CIY GOH cars that now sleep with the fishes.

Post a New Response

(1146686)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:35:17 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:00:31 2012.

Even better. What about a 2nd set of tracks all the way to the Franklin av station?

Post a New Response

(1146688)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:36:21 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 19:01:35 2012.

I agree. 300' or 600', nothing less.

Post a New Response

(1146690)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:40:08 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Mar 25 13:07:23 2012.

That and they are the surviving halves of the Willy B crash, which is why they are mismatched in the first place. I hope the R62 #1438 is preserved for being a survivor of the Union sq wreck.

Post a New Response

(1146692)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:42:14 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 18:40:24 2012.

:sigh: I see your point. I still wish the C would be a 600' train someday.

Post a New Response

(1146695)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 20:06:43 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:44:11 2012.

way slower/less convenient. Remember we are entering an era of increasing ## of gimpy geezers (I'm 68 and sometimes my knees give me trouble).

Post a New Response

(1146697)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 20:11:55 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:42:14 2012.

Someday, politics may decide there has to be a Bay Pkwy - Nassau St service again. They could eat up 5 trainsets if a new W as a rush hour special to Chambers.

Post a New Response

(1146698)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by 3-9 on Sun Mar 25 20:14:20 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by HANDBRAKE on Sat Mar 24 23:07:44 2012.

Very interesting stuff, thanks!

Post a New Response

(1146702)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 20:27:20 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 20:06:43 2012.

No, it's not climbing that high. They used to have a lot of locomotive engineers your age and they had to climb into the cab . . .

Post a New Response

(1146705)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by tunnelrat on Sun Mar 25 20:33:00 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 20:06:43 2012.

i,m 67 & my nephews give me trouble.


Post a New Response

(1146707)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 20:39:55 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by randyo on Sun Mar 25 18:56:32 2012.

Most subway lines in Tokyo use overhead. In fact only the first two lines use third rail. And of course in Tokyo, there is no real distinction between rapid transit and commuter lines, and subway trains run through service on commuter lines.

Post a New Response

(1146710)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by R30A on Sun Mar 25 20:53:51 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 10:55:01 2012.

I suspect that is not happening, at least not in 2013.

Post a New Response

(1146711)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 20:57:09 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:42:14 2012.

Well... Going from 240' to 480' was a big step already, wasn't it?

Post a New Response

(1146715)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 21:08:31 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 14:35:02 2012.

And that's too bad. I liked the way they looked and ran on my visits to Boston and SF.

Post a New Response

(1146719)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 21:15:15 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 20:11:55 2012.

Possible, but ideally the next time the Eastern division platforms needs to be rebuilt, they should also be extended to hold 10 car trains and join the rest of the mainline division. Leave it to the MTA to treat that area as an unwanted stepchild.

Post a New Response

(1146720)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 21:15:48 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 20:57:09 2012.

Way before my time, but :sigh: yeah...

Post a New Response

(1146730)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 22:17:08 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 21:15:48 2012.

It may be hard to imagine now but both the Sixth and Eighth Ave. lines had four-car locals when I moved here. The K and the Grand St. shuttle.

Post a New Response

(1146735)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 22:35:30 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 18:50:04 2012.

In the early 1990's (1992 to be exact), the tram-train was only an experiment. When it was declared successful, modifications and improvements of both the equipment and infrastructure began to be made as the lines were added to and extended. One was the ability of the equipment to use both high and low platforms. There are now about a dozen tram-train routes and more are planned. In addition, the equipment has been operated into at least two other countries, France and Switzerland. Theoretically, it's possible to use these cars all over Europe. Since I'll be returning there this summer, I'll have an update later on. If a comparison were to be made with earlier USA systems, it could probably best be made with Pacific Electric, Illinois Terminal or Chicago, North Shore and Milwaukee.

Post a New Response

(1146738)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 22:52:44 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 21:08:31 2012.

WHEN they ran is the operative comment. As to rider utility, the middle door only ingress/egress at high level was a pain. The Bredas have 4 usable doors per side either low or high. The whole SF subway/surface system needed either to run extremely tight headways or to be merged at tunnel portals in order to run sufficient trains for each route. Muni has managed to demonstrate inability to run tight headways even with semi automated train control. As to coupling/uncoupling at the portals, Muni personnel have either proved they were incompetent or that the couplers and on board control hardware were junk. With the Bredas Muni doesn't even try.

Post a New Response

(1146742)

view threaded

Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....)

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 23:10:32 2012, in response to Re: Staten Island North shore cars (Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....), posted by Joe Saitta on Sun Mar 25 22:35:30 2012.

I remember the Karlsruhe cars going to Switzerland with pantographs exchange at the border. The tram-train concept was brought later to the French border at Saarbrucken too.

Just to let you know, I grew up in Japan, France and England and I'm more familiar with systems there than the three US systems you mentioned. But for sure, Japanese systems copied a lot of what PE and the North Shore were doing and that is why I knew about them even before moving to the States.

Post a New Response

(1146747)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 26 00:01:13 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Mar 25 22:52:44 2012.

My only time in San Fransisco was in summer 1991. All the points you made in the post were already apparent back then. But I convinced my then girlfriend to ride the whole MUNI Metro with me once she rode the Market St. part and thought it was cool.

Post a New Response

(1146751)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Mar 26 00:12:11 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 26 00:01:13 2012.

Glad you both enjoyed it. In many respects the Metro often works well. OTOH, my experiences in rush hour have been ugly. Being my own boss I have the luxury of riding when it is less of a zoo.

Post a New Response

(1146763)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by 3-9 on Mon Mar 26 01:56:46 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 22:17:08 2012.

I remember when the AA was 4 cars. So were non-rush hour B trains (57th St/6 Av to Coney Island). I guess ridership really has improved.

Post a New Response

(1146768)

view threaded

Re: And the R-179 contract goes to....

Posted by randyo on Mon Mar 26 04:09:04 2012, in response to Re: And the R-179 contract goes to...., posted by grand concourse on Sun Mar 25 19:35:17 2012.

That goes without saying!

Post a New Response

[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9]

< Previous Page  

Page 4 of 9

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]