Jump to content

Why is the subway slower than it used to be?


Joel Up Front

Recommended Posts

I've heard too many times that in the old days, the expresses were actually expresses and there was "rapid" in "rapid transit." I don't get the push for people to get out of the comfort and sense of self-control of their own set of wheels when it seems like even the subways are slowing down.  Whenever I rode the (E), I always felt like the train was going slower than it should have been on the express stretches.

 

I'm not insulting the (MTA) or any of its personnel, it's just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I can think of a few reasons.... Old, outdated infrastructure, service levels that haven't been increased on enough lines with high ridership and an overhyping of the subway system.  Today's system absolutely sucks in comparison to what was around when I was a teen.  You're right... Expresses acted like expresses.  Today you have constant delays and trains being held. I find it painful even during short commutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timers. After the Union Square and Williamsburg Bridge wrecks, the "rapid" in "rapid transit" disappeared, and the system was littered with timers - some justified, some not.

Makes since why some expresses (like the (A) train for example) are so slow, and the locals are so fast (like the (C) train for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removed field shunting from the SMEE cars, heard when the R46s had that they would hit 55 on the QB express run, don't think they come close to that today. However, even with the field shunting I'm not sure if were they faster than the NTTs. I think with CBTC and as more NTT come into the system... "Rapid" transit is slowly coming back, the (L) line is quite fast running under CBTC and its river tube doesn't even have timers in it...

 

 

That (7) express run is gonna be something to see once CBTC is up and running on that line....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of a few reasons.... Old, outdated infrastructure, service levels that haven't been increased on enough lines with high ridership and an overhyping of the subway system.  Today's system absolutely sucks in comparison to what was around when I was a teen.  You're right... Expresses acted like expresses.  Today you have constant delays and trains being held. I find it painful even during short commutes.

Can't argue with you there.  What used to take 15min to Manhattan from Brooklyn now takes 20-30 on the (4)(5) most times it's frustrating and there definitely needs to be added services levels on weekends the trains are downright packed. . It's very apparent at least from my stops

Brooklyn Museum/Franklin Ave a lot more people are riding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety. Keep in mind that not only did they run faster, but they also ran much shorter headways, which usually resulted in deadly crashes like this one.

Did the elevated lines have trippers?  I know the Third Ave Line only had trippers or block signaling in the center track that was built to the dual contracts specs. Local trains would deadhead down the line fairly close. I know that be a fact on the el's. But is that a major issue with fixed block signals on the Subway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't argue with you there.  What used to take 15min to Manhattan from Brooklyn now takes 20-30 on the (4)(5) most times it's frustrating and there definitely needs to be added services levels on weekends the trains are downright packed. . It's very apparent at least from my stops

Brooklyn Museum/Franklin Ave a lot more people are riding!

Yep.  I've had several meetings with the Mayor's office Downtown and I have totally skipped the subway and taxis and just tracked the local bus and it was fine. Good AC and not too many people riding.  With it being summer out, if I'm going to deal with the subway, it needs to be worth it for me to head underground with the sauna-like stations.  Grand Central can be tolerable since there is AC here and there, but the other stations are like ovens.

 

That's one thing that sucks with Brooklyn.  It's either the subway or nothing since not too many areas have express bus service.  At least with areas like Riverdale you have Metro-North and the express buses options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removed field shunting from the SMEE cars, heard when the R46s had that they would hit 55 on the QB express run, don't think they come close to that today. However, even with the field shunting I'm not sure if were they faster than the NTTs. I think with CBTC and as more NTT come into the system... "Rapid" transit is slowly coming back, the (L) line is quite fast running under CBTC and its river tube doesn't even have timers in it...

 

 

That (7) express run is gonna be something to see once CBTC is up and running on that line....

 

NTTs definitely hit 55 (assuming they don't run into congestion between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, which is fairly common). I believe they hit 60 going down the 60th St tubes as well. 

 

Did the elevated lines have trippers?  I know the Third Ave Line only had trippers or block signaling in the center track that was built to the dual contracts specs. Local trains would deadhead down the line fairly close. I know that be a fact on the el's. But is that a major issue with fixed block signals on the Subway?

 

It's not an issue anymore, but in the very far past the els and maybe the subway also had run-on-sight signalling. We're talking like 100 years in the past. I can't speak about the presence of trippers since I was not alive at that time and I highly doubt anyone on this forum was, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an issue anymore, but in the very far past the els and maybe the subway also had run-on-sight signalling. We're talking like 100 years in the past. I can't speak about the presence of trippers since I was not alive at that time and I highly doubt anyone on this forum was, either.

Meaning if there is no train in front of you, go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTTs definitely hit 55 (assuming they don't run into congestion between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, which is fairly common). I believe they hit 60 going down the 60th St tubes as well. 

 

 

It's not an issue anymore, but in the very far past the els and maybe the subway also had run-on-sight signalling. We're talking like 100 years in the past. I can't speak about the presence of trippers since I was not alive at that time and I highly doubt anyone on this forum was, either.

Understood.. just saw the 9th Ave Elevated accident used for reference. So I assumed there was a connection between the operations of the Elevated and the Subway being you use it thus the question? Is the issue that Fixed block signaling isn't as adequate with more trains and shorter headways? I haven't seen a industry yet that hasn't had a major incident from the Airlines on down. Whats the fix? for more people needing to be moved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTTs definitely hit 55 (assuming they don't run into congestion between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, which is fairly common). I believe they hit 60 going down the 60th St tubes as well.

All of the cars are capped at 55 on a flat track. On the older cars the motors just cut off, and on the NTTs its controlled by computer. Now actually getting to that speed itself is almost impossible, given the amount of track needed to get up there. The longest is the Rockaway flats, and even there you're getting 45-50 tops.

 

The 60 St tube it's possible to hit 55-60 because of the steep downgrade and gravity and all that mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason why the subway is slower today is mainly because of safety reasons, there are more trains on the tracks and ridership is growing and the subway infastructure is getting older causing the system to become more of a mess and also most of the time how fast a train goes depends on the congestion on a line or the T/O and on the flats the most you can probably do is 50 because of the timers on both the bridges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood.. just saw the 9th Ave Elevated accident used for reference. So I assumed there was a connection between the operations of the Elevated and the Subway being you use it thus the question? Is the issue that Fixed block signaling isn't as adequate with more trains and shorter headways? I haven't seen a industry yet that hasn't had a major incident from the Airlines on down. Whats the fix? for more people needing to be moved?

 

It was used as a reference to the trains being "slower", and also less frequent. I mean, you technically could operate them faster, but everything has tradeoffs, which in this case is the safety of the riding public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Makes since why some expresses (like the (A) train for example) are so slow, and the locals are so fast (like the (C) train for example).

(A) was always like that between Canal and 59th, even in the "good old days."  I remember many times in the early 1980's being on an (A) along that route and found the local (then (AA) or (CC) ) to be just a fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The express is pretty much like a local now. On the Queens Blvd Line the (E) train is always slowing down between 71 Ave and Roosevelt. There is also the part after 36th street where trains are slowed down due to train traffic. That all happens because of the amount of trains running in the morning. The (E) and (F) run so close behind in the morning rush that have to wait for the other train to reach a certain distance first. Delays in service can also happen when someone is determined to fit into an already crowded train or they hold the doors. This often causes the trains to open and close its doors more than twice. All that waste time and that is why I don't care to take locals. If I take the (E) from 71 Ave to Lexington Ave it is about 20 minutes a little more if there is train traffic. The local is only a few minutes more at about 30 minutes which suffer less train traffic than those express routes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTTs definitely hit 55 (assuming they don't run into congestion between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, which is fairly common). I believe they hit 60 going down the 60th St tubes as well. 

 

No they do not.

 

The fastest they will do on any stretch in Queens Blvd. is high 40s before timers or posted speed restrictions force the train to slow down.

 

SMEE trains of the old days were faster than everything running today by far. NTT's are not "governed" per se, but they are programmed to limit their ability to accelerate significantly once they reach 45. Getting 50 without a downgrade is just about impossible with tech trains. SMEE trains have lost their get up and go with the removal of field shunting, as this carried the trains through acceleration at higher speeds, which generally falls off a cliff around 30, and really struggles at 40. The older SMEE trains also had much stronger (better) brakes. This was changed in the early/mid 1990s when the old J-1 relay valves and cast iron shoes were swapped out for J-14 relay valves and composition shoes. The "benefit" was a smoother ride, but it significantly lengthened stopping distances. This was a contributing factor to the Williamsburg Bridge wreck (insufficient emergency stopping distance), and led to the addition of many of the timers, as well as lengthening the protection (more red signals) behind trains in certain signal blocks, throughout the system. The result is the slower system you see today.

 

It is slowed further by heavy riding and congestion throughout - typically outer boroughs had less ridership whereas today that is not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Excellent post. I would upvote if I weren't on mobile. I was trying to remember what the brake change was because I could have sworn there was a significant switch some years back, and you covered it exactly.

 

The brake change is another great example of the TA stepping on one foot while putting a new shoe on the other. But new problems among new improvements are common. If anybody remembers the changes to Fulton St's platform a little whole back, consider that Transit actually left up the old car markers in the station and only after complete confusion bothered to paint them black. Yet they still trip up new T/Os who brake early and aim to stop a car length early, and one T/O I know actually makes a point of explaining to his trainees that the black markers are to be ignored completely, as they represent a bad distraction under braking if one doesn't know to look out for them.

 

Just separately, back to the references everybody made to the L and CBTC--weren't the 14th St tubes just slowed down fairly recently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Excellent post. I would upvote if I weren't on mobile. I was trying to remember what the brake change was because I could have sworn there was a significant switch some years back, and you covered it exactly.

 

The brake change is another great example of the TA stepping on one foot while putting a new shoe on the other. But new problems among new improvements are common. If anybody remembers the changes to Fulton St's platform a little whole back, consider that Transit actually left up the old car markers in the station and only after complete confusion bothered to paint them black. Yet they still trip up new T/Os who brake early and aim to stop a car length early, and one T/O I know actually makes a point of explaining to his trainees that the black markers are to be ignored completely, as they represent a bad distraction under braking if one doesn't know to look out for them.

 

Just separately, back to the references everybody made to the L and CBTC--weren't the 14th St tubes just slowed down fairly recently?

I took the (L) on Sunday and there were some slowdowns in the tunnel heading to Brooklyn that I noticed. The (L) used to go at full speed under the river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was used as a reference to the trains being "slower", and also less frequent. I mean, you technically could operate them faster, but everything has tradeoffs, which in this case is the safety of the riding public.

Safety first always just seems like the idea of safety has changed over the years. The system is now operating slower then it was initially designed to, so we'd have to assume that what was safe in 1900-30's isn't considered so presently? Once again back to the original question what do we know now that we didn't know before?Or is this just a case of deferred maintenance, ill upkeep or an expense issue wear and tear ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just separately, back to the references everybody made to the L and CBTC--weren't the 14th St tubes just slowed down fairly recently?

Yeah the train slows itself down somewhat. Still pretty fast, but not as fast as it used to be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Safety first always just seems like the idea of safety has changed over the years. The system is now operating slower then it was initially designed to, so we'd have to assume that what was safe in 1900-30's isn't considered so presently? Once again back to the original question what do we know now that we didn't know before?Or is this just a case of deferred maintenance, ill upkeep or an expense issue wear and tear ?

 

The perception of acceptable levels of safety has certainly changed over the years. When the subways were built, it wasn't exactly rare for people to die on the job, but fast forward to today and no one dies on construction sites anymore. Likewise, derailments and accidents and fires are significantly less common these days, and even when they do occur fatalities or injuries are not as numerous. This is because we have adopted safer practices such as timers and better signalling. While it may not result in the fastest commute, I'm pretty sure that getting to your destination a little bit later is a lot better than being dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perception of acceptable levels of safety has certainly changed over the years. When the subways were built, it wasn't exactly rare for people to die on the job, but fast forward to today and no one dies on construction sites anymore. Likewise, derailments and accidents and fires are significantly less common these days, and even when they do occur fatalities or injuries are not as numerous. This is because we have adopted safer practices such as timers and better signalling. While it may not result in the fastest commute, I'm pretty sure that getting to your destination a little bit later is a lot better than being dead.

I hear you I can't say I understand it, but I hear you. Technology allows for better safety on construction sites.. Better composites for carbodies and crash testing all the things technology should do, If the system is more efficient with timers and better signaling then so be it. From my perspective and I don't claim to be a expert on the NYCSubway by any stretch I ask is it more efficient? Or is it more points of of failure. Extra added on an antiquated system? Patch work from lack of funding and ability to do it the right way? This is one of them subjects that resonate with me like Concorde vs the more efficient 747. Just my view.

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.