Jump to content

Flatbush ave 2/5 capacity


Juelz4309

Recommended Posts

Ima Try to keep this sime as I Can

 

1. Why do so many 5 trains serve utica ave during rush hours?. Ive seen 4 trains back to back comprised of 2 4s and 2 5s. One would think with that dramatic layup procedure at utica would keep the trains to a mimimum especially with the high frequencies of the 4.

 

2. How Long does it actually take to "switch" a track? Ive often heard of the "TPH" a two track terminal such as flatbush can handle...but iive read here that flabush "cant handle" both lines...Why Not?

 

3. I notice the "nereid ave" service on the 5 originates from utica ave and not flatbush...I know theres no storage yard east of utica so where is all this room for these 5s comin from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Not "so many (5) trains" drop out at Utica during the rush. A few do.

 

It's to alleviate congestion at both Rogers Junction (where it crosses to/from the local track, delaying all other trains behind) and Flatbush. However, the congestion then spreads over to Utica. Sometimes, if the delays are so bad, there's a very good chance that a (4) would get sent local to New Lots after Franklin. Yes, I've seen it during my commute home. During rush hours, the (4) is also almost always congested between Franklin and Utica, while the (3) passes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ima Try to keep this sime as I Can

 

1. Why do so many 5 trains serve utica ave during rush hours?. Ive seen 4 trains back to back comprised of 2 4s and 2 5s. One would think with that dramatic layup procedure at utica would keep the trains to a mimimum especially with the high frequencies of the 4.

 

2. How Long does it actually take to "switch" a track? Ive often heard of the "TPH" a two track terminal such as flatbush can handle...but iive read here that flabush "cant handle" both lines...Why Not?

 

3. I notice the "nereid ave" service on the 5 originates from utica ave and not flatbush...I know theres no storage yard east of utica so where is all this room for these 5s comin from?

 

Actually, I will clear this one up for you.

 

1. *Already answered in the thread

 

2. It doesn't take long at all to switch a track, however the train does have to wait for the proceeding train to clear the switch area. If the trains are back to back, there will be a slight delay. Flatbush also cannot handle all those trains because it is only a 2-track line. You can only send so may trains at a time. This is the main reason as to why (5) trains go to Utica during rush. The last 4 Brooklyn bound (5) trains of the evening also go to Utica Av.  This is for deadhead reasons only and have nothing to do with capacity.

 

3. It's actually the opposite. Of the 12 daily weekday runs to Neried, only 5 of them pull out of Utica. The (5) is actually my favorite IRT line, and I also live in Flatbush.

 

Not "so many (5) trains" drop out at Utica during the rush. A few do.

 

It's to alleviate congestion at both Rogers Junction (where it crosses to/from the local track, delaying all other trains behind) and Flatbush. However, the congestion then spreads over to Utica. Sometimes, if the delays are so bad, there's a very good chance that a (4) would get sent local to New Lots after Franklin. Yes, I've seen it during my commute home. During rush hours, the (4) is also almost always congested between Franklin and Utica, while the (3) passes it.

 

He's correct actually. More than a dozen (5) trains terminate at Utica during rush, and yes there are delays at times because of the high number of trains heading to Crown Heights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way you could eliminate the huge delays at Rogers Junction and Utica is to allow a few (4) & (5) trains to short turn at Bowling Green, but that would back up the Brooklyn ones behind. I remember a few months back in another thread where one of the transit employees confirmed that it's legal to ride through the South Ferry inner loop on the (4) & (5).

 

Am I mistaken or nah? If not, then it shouldn't take no more than at most a minute for the C/R to record/play the announcements saying:

 

"Attention ladies and gentlement, this is the last downtown stop on this train. Once again, this is the last downtown stop on this train. Again, this is the last downtown stop on this train. The next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Once again, the next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Again, the next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. For service to Brooklyn, please wait on this platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. Once again, for service to Brooklyn, please wait on this platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. Again, for service to Brooklyn, please wait on the platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. The next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Stand clear of the closing doors please"

 

It really makes little sense to congest Utica if Flatbush and New Lots are experiencing little to no delays, because obviously all those "very frequent" (4) & (5) trains are headed back to the Bronx anyway. That's why I am suggesting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the (3) slows down and crawls into Nostrand northbound, it is because of a (2) or a (5) crossing ahead at the junction. If not, then the signals all go green and the T/Os working the (3) don't apply the brakes at all until arriving at the station of course. Those activated timers are to prevent the train from hauling into the station and protect the interlocking.

 

I noticed this on every other line too...like for example 168th on the (C)....if you're on the uptown one, it will slow down and sit in the tunnel or crawl slowly into the station if a downtown (C) local is crossing over from the N/B to the S/B local track ahead of the station. If not, then all signals are green without no problem.

 

I'll let some other members chime in on the issues with the Brooklyn IRT mainline, its two branches, and/or their bottlenecks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After an inquiry, I am realizing that no it is not legal to ride the 5 through the inner loop at South Ferry. The most recent 2 GO used the loop but it was the outer loop not the inner loop. I dont believe it stopped there as the platform gap fillers cannot accommodate R142 cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way you could eliminate the huge delays at Rogers Junction and Utica is to allow a few (4) & (5) trains to short turn at Bowling Green, but that would back up the Brooklyn ones behind. I remember a few months back in another thread where one of the transit employees confirmed that it's legal to ride through the South Ferry inner loop on the (4) & (5).

 

Am I mistaken or nah? If not, then it shouldn't take no more than at most a minute for the C/R to record/play the announcements saying:

 

"Attention ladies and gentlement, this is the last downtown stop on this train. Once again, this is the last downtown stop on this train. Again, this is the last downtown stop on this train. The next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Once again, the next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Again, the next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. For service to Brooklyn, please wait on this platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. Once again, for service to Brooklyn, please wait on this platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. Again, for service to Brooklyn, please wait on the platform for the next arriving 4 or 5 train to Brooklyn. The next stop on this train will be Bowling Green on the uptown platform. Stand clear of the closing doors please"

 

It really makes little sense to congest Utica if Flatbush and New Lots are experiencing little to no delays, because obviously all those "very frequent" (4) & (5) trains are headed back to the Bronx anyway. That's why I am suggesting this.

The problem with short turning (4) or (5) trains at Bowling Green, especially during rush hours, is Brooklyn is where the riders want to go. Unless there is a major blockage on the Brooklyn end why would you intentionally inconvenience those riders? The second problem with this move is that unscheduled trains in the loop may remain there for some time before there is a gap in n/b service and they can proceed out of the loop. Do you propose screwing up the riders heading n/b on scheduled (4) or (5) trains by sticking an unscheduled train ahead of them? You don't want riders sitting on a train in the loop for any unspecified period of time. This is not the same as (6) trains at Brooklyn Bridge. I worked the (5) line for over 25 years during the pm rush and, IMO ,your proposal creates more problems than it eases congestion. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the MTA would build switches east of Rogers Junction from the express to the local tracks the (2) and (3) could serve Flatbush while the (4)(5) serve ENY crossing over after Rogers Junction. This would keep with MTA's philosophy of Fleeting the signals and allowing the passengers to do the footwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the MTA would build switches east of Rogers Junction from the express to the local tracks the (2) and (3) could serve Flatbush while the (4)(5) serve ENY crossing over after Rogers Junction. This would keep with MTA's philosophy of Fleeting the signals and allowing the passengers to do the footwork.

It would make much more sense if there was in fact a switch put in immediately west of Nostrand that would allow the train running on the local track to switch to the express track there.  Doing that would help eliminate the merge problems at Rogers and potentially set it up where:

 

ALL (2) and (3) trains run to Flatbush Avenue.

 

(4) runs at ALL TIMES as a local east of Franklin Avenue to New Lots (as it has been doing for 30+ years now in overnights and early Sunday mornings)

 

(5) replaces the (4) to Utica Avenue east of Franklin on the express track (possibly going to Brooklyn at all times except overnights).

 

That to me makes the most sense if it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flipping those four Brooklyn IRT lines would remove the East Side option on the Flatbush branch and the West Side option on the New Lots branch, forcing more people to transfer to transfer at Franklin and/or Nevins. Not everyone from either branch wants to go to just one place. Some of those commuters work in downtown Brooklyn and lower Manhattan. Most are going to the east side and some are going to the west side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with short turning (4) or (5) trains at Bowling Green, especially during rush hours, is Brooklyn is where the riders want to go. Unless there is a major blockage on the Brooklyn end why would you intentionally inconvenience those riders? The second problem with this move is that unscheduled trains in the loop may remain there for some time before there is a gap in n/b service and they can proceed out of the loop. Do you propose screwing up the riders heading n/b on scheduled (4) or (5) trains by sticking an unscheduled train ahead of them? You don't want riders sitting on a train in the loop for any unspecified period of time. This is not the same as (6) trains at Brooklyn Bridge. I worked the (5) line for over 25 years during the pm rush and, IMO ,your proposal creates more problems than it eases congestion. Carry on.

As we both know, the (4) and (5), like the (2) and (3), are nearly empty in the reverse peak direction (heading to Brooklyn in the AM rush and back from Brooklyn in the PM rush) after many commuters have gotten off for work in the CBDs. As we both also know, it happens on every other line. That's why I suggest my proposal mention. But otherwise, I do indeed get what you're saying. Sigh. So I guess we have no choice but to just congested both Rogers Junction and Utica. Smh.

 

During the morning rush, I could understand, since all southbound trains in Brooklyn are plain empty like a ghostown during that time, as well as early afternoon. But the evening rush is why I suggested the way I did. The Rogers Junction can only handle 17 trains per hour on the express and 17 trains per hour on the local, meaning the (2), (3), (4), and (5) each basically run on a 7 minute headway. The (5) is the #1 reason why the (2), (3) and (4) face catastrophic delays around the area, including Utica and at times Flatbush, during both AM and PM rushes. The Flatbush branch is only connected to and from the local tracks. I can't understand they built it this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make much more sense if there was in fact a switch put in immediately west of Nostrand that would allow the train running on the local track to switch to the express track there.  Doing that would help eliminate the merge problems at Rogers and potentially set it up where:

 

ALL (2) and (3) trains run to Flatbush Avenue.

 

(4) runs at ALL TIMES as a local east of Franklin Avenue to New Lots (as it has been doing for 30+ years now in overnights and early Sunday mornings)

 

(5) replaces the (4) to Utica Avenue east of Franklin on the express track (possibly going to Brooklyn at all times except overnights).

 

That to me makes the most sense if it can be done.

 

The R on the BMT Broadway/4th Avenue Line should solve that problem now the Montague Street Tunnel is open again, if you live in Brooklyn. Win win situation. That takes care of the recent Atlantic Avenue problem with delays on the IRT lines. (Decreased dwell times due to less crowded conditions because of an unnecessary cross-division transfer due to underwater tube shutdowns).

 

You wouldn't want to call out for something that will bring about those same overcrowded rush hour conditions back into the stations as RollOver alluded to (The recreated transfer to transfer point). The reason is because now we have another route into Downtown Manhattan (BMT Broadway). At the same time it takes the pressure off Bowling Green since South Ferry is right there giving Staten Island residents alternatives to the 1, 4, and 5 trains.

 

Yes we need to rebuild Rogers Street junction eventually and that's what the MTA is considering as a long term project. The catch to it is that it will disrupt service for years if the MTA tries to attempt it which is why it never got of the drawing board with the 1968 Plan for Action.

 

The Dual Contracts builders had everything in place for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flipping those four Brooklyn IRT lines would remove the East Side option on the Flatbush branch and the West Side option on the New Lots branch, forcing more people to transfer to transfer at Franklin and/or Nevins. Not everyone from either branch wants to go to just one place. Some of those commuters work in downtown Brooklyn and lower Manhattan. Most are going to the east side and some are going to the west side.

Agreed, but if it cuts down on delays overall, then that might have to be done. 

 

Also, riders on Flatbush outside of weekdays are used to having to switch to the (4) at Franklin if they want the east side anyway and likewise, those east of Utica have had the (4) operate to New Lots nights and early Sunday mornings for MANY years.  It probably would not be THAT big of a deal if the Flatbush line was strictly west side and New Lots/Utica was strictly east side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, but if it cuts down on delays overall, then that might have to be done. 

 

Also, riders on Flatbush outside of weekdays are used to having to switch to the (4) at Franklin if they want the east side anyway and likewise, those east of Utica have had the (4) operate to New Lots nights and early Sunday mornings for MANY years.  It probably would not be THAT big of a deal if the Flatbush line was strictly west side and New Lots/Utica was strictly east side.

 

But thats the problem. You dont want passengers to be forced to transfer at Franklin, Atlantic or even Borough Hall. Thats why its set up that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree once again for the same reasons I've told you. Plus, the (3) is the primary service on the New Lots branch, not the (4). The (3) 's equipment are regularly maintain/inspected at Livonia's shop. Lenox is a yard that just stores trains. That's it. So yes, it is not fair, because the (4) has Mosholu/Concourse. More people from both Brooklyn IRT branches work in the east side than downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, and the west side, but there are still some people going to those 3 areas mention. There are also school students who get off at some of the stops even before the Brooklyn CBD. You'll potentially overcrowd the (4). No joke. Remember, the (2) and (3) become crowded once again at Atlantic Avenue, since those customers want west side service. Keep the same Brooklyn IRT setups the way they are, so loads don't raise well above than what the (MTA) calls for. I don't want to see the (4) to New Lots 24/7, just so riders can have their one seat direct express ride to Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (3) and (5) are not only part-time lines, but are also basically supplemental services to the (2) and (4), which already have their own riders. If you shove all the additional customers from the (3) and (5) to the (2) and (4), it would be horrific.

 

We cannot afford any more crushload trains for the sake of it. Crowded? Seated loaded with some standees? Fine. But not crushload.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.