itmaybeokay Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10176 Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Bruh... The R188 is LITERALLY an R142A with CBTC capabilities. There's no difference between the two. I was like "Wait, Am i missing something?" Well, just to be a jerk about it, The R188 has the 160's door closing chime. So there's a difference, even if it is a matter of programming. But in this case we're talking about PHYSICAL differences, no? In which case the "CBTC Hump" of the 188 is the only physical difference besides "new train smell" Meanwhile... So word is the is goin to Forest Hills, the is going to Jamaica with the , the to Astoria, the via the T, and the to Bay Pkwy. The will stay full express along the whole entire Culver Line, and the will serve the QBL Local and go to 9th Av, Bklyn or Kings Hwy with the and then via the . It's all true! They also secretly tested the R160 in 1998. I have proof. Even a video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nR2sZsiE_M I also own the entire subway system and will happily sell it to you for just $100. Cash only please. Edited August 21, 2015 by itmaybeokay 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10177 Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) I was like "Wait, Am i missing something?" But in this case we're talking about PHYSICAL differences, no? In which case the "CBTC Hump" of the 188 is the only physical difference besides "new train smell" Meanwhile... It's all true! They also secretly tested the R160 in 1998. I have proof. Even a video! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nR2sZsiE_M I also own the entire subway system and will happily sell it to you for just $100. Cash only please. Where should I mail the money to? Edited August 21, 2015 by Union Tpke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R62AR33 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10178 Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) You are wrong. Believe it or not those R142/A 's that you see on the were originally for the .... you have to understand Nobody back then Jerome or Westchester Yard wanted to give their R62/A's up for NTTs. Westchester yard were forced to give their R62A's up to the because the R142A's couldn't run on the . If the R142A testing on the would have been succesul then R62A's from the would of gone to the to retire the Redbirds and the would have stayed as it was. Since Bloomberg rode lexington ave constantly and saw the R142/A's transitioning to the and he wanted the to get the R142/A's as well to make lexington ave 100% NTTs. That is why the R62s ended up going to the and the NTTs on the . Edited August 21, 2015 by R62AR33 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10179 Posted August 21, 2015 "Constantly"? Bloomberg took the subway like, twice. With his entire PR team and ten photographers. Does anybody actually have evidence this was due to political pressuring? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10180 Posted August 21, 2015 If I am not mistaken, the reason they didn't go on the was due to power issues, not like those faced by the R160s in the Rockaways. It had nothing to do with power issues on the Flushing Line (I doubt there were power issues on the Flushing Line back then anyway), but that 142As are/were 10-car trains in sets of five at the time. So there was no pressing reason in sending them to the over the , as the former is 11-cars. But with the current R188 order, that has changed. Believe it or not those R142/A 's that you see on the were originally for the .... you have to understand Nobody back then Jerome or Westchester Yard wanted to give their R62/A's up for NTTs. Westchester yard were forced to give their R62A's up to the because the R142A's couldn't run on the . Since Bloomberg rode lexington ave constantly and saw the R142/A's transitioning to the and he wanted the to get the R142/A's as well to make lexington ave 100% NTTs. That is why the R62s ended up going to the and the NTTs on the . Whatever. But I still don't believe you, as I don't know where the hell you're getting this from. Last I checked, Bloomberg has no control over which cars go where. That's for the itself to decide, not Bloomberg or railfans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon2305 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10181 Posted August 21, 2015 It's somewhat hard to believe that politics is the reason why the R142/R142A went to the & lines but who knows it could be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10182 Posted August 21, 2015 I also heard there were clearance issues with the R142As way back when in the Steinway tubes. Anyone remember the last batch of R142A's (the ones that are now on the ?) I'd bet dollars to donuts that the final order of R142As would have looked more like a R188-lite order minus the conversions (40-something single cars and a handful of whole 11 car sets.) Today's R188 order would have still existed for the CBTC conversions and the extra cars for the extension but with few or even no single cars. It's somewhat hard to believe that politics is the reason why the R142/R142A went to the & lines but who knows it could be true. The plan for the initial order was for the and to get NTTs, so it was known from the beginning the was getting its new trains. Who knows what their motivations were for route assignments after that initial order.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10183 Posted August 21, 2015 The plan for the initial order was for the and to get NTTs, so it was known from the beginning the was getting its new trains. Who knows what their motivations were for route assignments after that initial order.... IMO, they should have NTTs on the . I never thought it was appropriate to have Lex 100% NTT while 7th Avenue only ran NTTs on one line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32 3838 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10184 Posted August 21, 2015 The reason why the was made 100% NTT was because of dwell timing,the R142/142A's have bigger doors than the R62's The R142A's had clearance issues in the Steinway tubes, they tested them on the around 2003, they have since the corrected the issues, did another test in 2011 with regular R142A's 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted August 21, 2015 Share #10185 Posted August 21, 2015 "Constantly"? Bloomberg took the subway like, twice. With his entire PR team and ten photographers. Does anybody actually have evidence this was due to political pressuring? Nah, he rode the train regularly, he even rode the bus before. I remember riding the M42 and the B/O was speaking to this women and the B/O claimed Bloomberg got on his bus before, the B/O told him to mind his f**king business when he got on, must have had some kind of beef with Bloomberg's policies or something.... I'm not being sarcastic or making this up either, I clearly remember the B/O saying that. I think the B/O was driving a different route though when Bloomberg got on, probably the M79 IIRC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10186 Posted August 22, 2015 Nah, he rode the train regularly, he even rode the bus before. I remember riding the M42 and the B/O was speaking to this women and the B/O claimed Bloomberg got on his bus before, the B/O told him to mind his f**king business when he got on, must have had some kind of beef with Bloomberg's policies or something.... I'm not being sarcastic or making this up either, I clearly remember the B/O saying that. I think the B/O was driving a different route though when Bloomberg got on, probably the M79 IIRC. Now that I remember, he did ride often enough to go through the trouble to get himself a half-fare Metrocard when he turned 65. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10187 Posted August 22, 2015 It had nothing to do with power issues on the Flushing Line (I doubt there were power issues on the Flushing Line back then anyway), but that 142As are/were 10-car trains in sets of five at the time. So there was no pressing reason in sending them to the over the , as the former is 11-cars. But with the current R188 order, that has changed. Whatever. But I still don't believe you, as I don't know where the hell you're getting this from. Last I checked, Bloomberg has no control over which cars go where. That's for the itself to decide, not Bloomberg or railfans. Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. Another one, the ran to 179th Street back in 1988. It only lasted less than a year because residents along Hillside Avenue local stations complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride (And that was also proven in an article). So yeah there is truth to it 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j express Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10188 Posted August 22, 2015 Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. Another one, the ran to 179th Street back in 1988. It only lasted less than a year because residents along Hillside Avenue local stations complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride (And that was also proven in an article). So yeah there is truth to it Whats the reason for the to Lefferts back in 2011? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CTK246 Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10189 Posted August 22, 2015 Whats the reason for the to Lefferts back in 2011? If I had to guess, it would make passengers less confused about which to take, since it has three terminals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10190 Posted August 22, 2015 And before that, Upper Manhattan almost lost their 8th Avenue express service and the Bronx almost lost Concourse express service. Basically: -The 6th Avenue would have replaced the north of 59th Street weekdays only. -The itself would have been today's (168-Euclid local, extended to 207-Euclid local weekends), except overnights where the would run 207-Far Rockaway local. -The itself would be gone, leaving the by itself in the Bronx rush hours. -A new line would have replaced the from 34th Street on south except overnights, including the Lefferts/Rockaway branches and the Rockaway Park rush hour service. Version 2: -Switch all references above to and switch all references above to . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q113 LTD Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10191 Posted August 22, 2015 I was thinking, since our elevated trestle are aging, would it be possible in the next 20,30 or even 40 years from now that these lines may have to be place underground? I would think if would build a new subway line, it will be below ground rather that make the line elevated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10192 Posted August 22, 2015 Nah, he rode the train regularly, he even rode the bus before. I remember riding the M42 and the B/O was speaking to this women and the B/O claimed Bloomberg got on his bus before, the B/O told him to mind his f**king business when he got on, must have had some kind of beef with Bloomberg's policies or something.... I'm not being sarcastic or making this up either, I clearly remember the B/O saying that. I think the B/O was driving a different route though when Bloomberg got on, probably the M79 IIRC. He only took at as a PR thing very occasionally. Maybe it seemed like a lot cause there was a camera every time, but it wasn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10193 Posted August 22, 2015 Believe it or not politics has a role in service. That's why they haven't done the to Lefferts. It was supposed to happen back in 2011. Lefferts riders complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride to Manhattan and they have pretty high political people. Another one, the ran to 179th Street back in 1988. It only lasted less than a year because residents along Hillside Avenue local stations complained that they wanted their one seat Express Ride (And that was also proven in an article). So yeah there is truth to it Been aware of that...I'm talking about car assignments, not service patterns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10194 Posted August 22, 2015 And before that, Upper Manhattan almost lost their 8th Avenue express service and the Bronx almost lost Concourse express service. Basically: -The 6th Avenue would have replaced the north of 59th Street weekdays only. -The itself would have been today's (168-Euclid local, extended to 207-Euclid local weekends), except overnights where the would run 207-Far Rockaway local. -The itself would be gone, leaving the by itself in the Bronx rush hours. -A new line would have replaced the from 34th Street on south except overnights, including the Lefferts/Rockaway branches and the Rockaway Park rush hour service. Version 2: -Switch all references above to and switch all references above to . I'm suspecting this would have been around 1991 or so, around the time the ended and the Aqueduct Racetrack Station was actually closed (a big deal was made about the latter in Daily Racing Form at the time). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10195 Posted August 22, 2015 Been aware of that...I'm talking about car assignments, not service patterns. And again politics have had a role in certain assignments. The is a good example (Not talking about the R160s) I'm talking about why they try doing whatever they can to avoid putting R46s on there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttcsubwayfan Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10196 Posted August 22, 2015 It had nothing to do with power issues on the Flushing Line (I doubt there were power issues on the Flushing Line back then anyway), but that 142As are/were 10-car trains in sets of five at the time. So there was no pressing reason in sending them to the over the , as the former is 11-cars. But with the current R188 order, that has changed. They could always have gotten one of the option orders in 11-car configurations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10197 Posted August 22, 2015 (edited) And again politics have had a role in certain assignments. The is a good example (Not talking about the R160s) I'm talking about why they try doing whatever they can to avoid putting R46s on there Hmm right okay if you say so...anyway, 60 footers having more doors than 75 footers to keep dwell and boarding times down, as well as the also having more ridership than the does is the reason why the uses 60 footers only. Edited August 22, 2015 by RollOver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10198 Posted August 22, 2015 And before that, Upper Manhattan almost lost their 8th Avenue express service and the Bronx almost lost Concourse express service. Basically: -The 6th Avenue would have replaced the north of 59th Street weekdays only. -The itself would have been today's (168-Euclid local, extended to 207-Euclid local weekends), except overnights where the would run 207-Far Rockaway local. -The itself would be gone, leaving the by itself in the Bronx rush hours. -A new line would have replaced the from 34th Street on south except overnights, including the Lefferts/Rockaway branches and the Rockaway Park rush hour service. Version 2: -Switch all references above to and switch all references above to . Something like this perhaps... Service Capacity Plan Orange A version 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10199 Posted August 22, 2015 Did Broadway Junction ever have a back entrance? I see a structure on the other end of the station at Sackman St. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted August 22, 2015 Share #10200 Posted August 22, 2015 The one time I catch a Yankee special train it terminates at 34th Street-Herald Square. What a ripoff smh, the and must be taking all the 2nd avenue capacity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.