Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/10/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Short turning is useful, especially when you need to thin out heading towards some disruption, but (and I'd really love to hear what your experiences w/ their operation are) gap trains strike me as the better way to work with gaps. Short turning into a gap is as much of a cascade as pulling an interval from another line, whereas a gap train keeps the issue isolated. Problem is, as always, the operational expense of anything in this system... Bringing a Nassau service to Bay Ridge would (if they can learn how to operate lengthy lines) help with Lower Manhattan O/D traffic -- more ways for people to avoid the IRT. I really appreciate you posting these experiences, TM5. I think it's key to understand the operational side of things. That said, I think we have an undeniable issue with work trains and work productivity in this city. I can't think of another system anywhere that stores such a large share of its trains in one yard, so frequently sees work trains crap out on the road, and begets so little productive time while causing so many delays as a result. Yes, we have yard space issues, but those are attenuable -- even just making better use of Linden and Jamaica (both of which host work sets today) would do worlds for service (provided that you give good AWS coverage from Linden-BWJ). I don't know enough about the ins and outs of this issue to put together some really fine pointed proposal, but again, we are unique in our incompetence here. On Fourth Ave: the issue with work train delays there isn't just speed, but also junction capacity. The tide of work trains hitting Dekalb stacks the express track, which is essentially why trains are running local these days -- you don't want s and s stuck behind that. The current setup increases and headways to 12 minutes (which is itself unacceptable) but it works, I guess. I think the larger issue at hand is that we are increasingly willing to hand over the railroad to unending maintenance without looking at ways to reform maintenance processes, which simply isn't a recipe for success in the long term -- the subway is for riders, after all. This is why I bring up evening out work set distributions, considering alternate routes, reforming actual practices to reduce the need for work sets, etc. *** An interesting international comparison on sick passenger incidents, for those who were discussing them: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/person_ill_on_train
  2. 5 points
    Been reading some posts concerning Bay Ridge (R) service and the ,somewhat, related work train stacking complaints. Starting with the Bay Ridge complaints and being a veteran of the IRT my solution is based on my experiences. Leaving Dyre or WP heading s/b the E180th St supervision or Mott supervision sees a significant gap about to happen on the n/b (2) or (5) line or both. SOP is to turn a s/b train back north at E 180th or 149th-GC to cover that gap. Sometimes a train from both lines is turned back north for service. Same thing would happen further down the line at Brooklyn Bridge, Bowling Green, Times Square, or South Ferry. I don't know the plant on the BMT southern division but I do know that trains can be turned back south at Whitehall and ,IIRC, Court St. That seems to be the easiest solution in my book. Notice that in my IRT solutions nowhere was a (3) or a (6) brought into the mix. The idea was to KISS and keep the problem isolated to affect the minimum amount of service disruption, Why would one extend the (J) line to Bay Ridge? That line is long enough as it is. Work train stacking on the Fourth Avenue corridor. Surprised it wasn't thought of years ago. I'll go back to my work train experiences mainly in the IRT. Someone asked why work trains weren't stored in every yard. They are sometimes but in the IRT back 30+ years ago it was a matter of yard space. Westchester Yard was the home base for all IRT work trains. Diesels were serviced there, rails, signals, and construction material were stored there. East 180th was out of the question. Space was so tight that we laid up trains on the WPR structure from Pelham Parkway down to Bronx Park East as well as the two layup tracks south of Pelham Parkway on the Dyre line itself. 239th Yard was no better with the (2) , (5) and two refuse trains stored up there as well as (2) trains stored downstairs at Gun Hill Road on the Third Avenue platform level. Lenox barely had room for the money train and 137th yard was out, period. 240th was a no-go before the flyover into 207th was constructed. Trains were laid up nightly from 225th St to 238th St on the structure. I've worked jobs that started at Westchester Yard and the train had to travel to 168th St on the (1), 149th St-GC lower level, Nevins St in Brooklyn, Eastern Parkway-Brooklyn Museum and Franklin Ave and Times Square. Many times these jobs were piggy-backed where two or more work trains were involved with a specific order and direction included. Just think about the travel time and trackage covered just to reach the work site and return to home base the next morning. Many times by the time everyone was in place and the work started we might have two or three hours before we had to pack up and head home. I can remember many mornings when the Joralemon tube, the Lex Express, and the Pelham Express were tied up well past 6 am. That's why, IMO, those work trains are stacked on Fourth Avenue. Just tell the road trains that are scheduled as such to run " express on the local track" which was a simple procedure back in the day. As an aside to those who say store those trains and run them up the West End, or Culver Lines and wait to be slotted in I suggest the following. On a train that's being flagged to a work site, meaning someone standing up on a flat or crane car as the eyes and ears for the diesel operator, I will personally rent a pickup truck and pick a night with wind chills down near zero, and prop you standing up in the bed of said truck while I travel north on Ocean Parkway or McDonald Avenue at 10 or 15 mph while the elements rip you a new one. Just ignore the rain, sleet and wind while we creep toward Downtown Brooklyn on our way to Midtown. Remember to bring an extra set of clothes too. I can almost guarantee the sentiments I just posted is why many present day RTO people have stopped posting regularly. Seems to me that many posters have forgotten that there's a human element involved here too. Joking(?) comments about taking sick customers to a terminal to speed up service. I thought we were better than that. Just my thoughts. Carry on.
  3. 4 points
    Most importantly, every car is (potentially) different as constructed and the testing must be performed and conform to class specifications individually, regardless if its a 4-, 5- or (as with the R-188) even a 6-car link. The success of any single car (or unit) is not considered a success for the associated overall fleet of cars in any way. The pilot, production and delivery sequence was and is per advance agreement between NYCT (Car Equipment) and Bombardier. Initial priority was granted to the 260 8-car trains (at the time to begin in 2015) to allow replacement of the 272 existing Phase I R-32's and MK R-42's. Subsequent changes in service and planning have rent those plans asunder against a backdrop of overall fleet enlargement (rather than 1-for-1 replacement), but Bombardier still continued to build on the original trajectory and thus produced and delivered the reduced quantity (188) of 4-car sets first. NYCT more recently revised its desired quantity of 5-car sets several times in lieu of lateness penalty payments. IIRC, it first went from 40 to 80 to 120, then 120 to 130, while concurrently reducing the quantity of 4-car sets from the original 260 to 220, then 196, and finally 188. The final, VERY revised quantity of 120 5-car R-179's was then moved to the end of the production "run" out of necessity at the Plattsburgh end. Also to reiterate, NYCT is currently capable of processing one linked set (regardless of length) at a time, involving personnel at 207 Street and Pitkin, Engineering and Car Acceptance and finally RTO for (test) crews, instruction and logistics. Then there are the vendor (Bombardier) representatives. Each unit will proceed through the same process the same way, regardless of length. Through time, across numerous types of equipment contracts, work sites and procedures can vary. For example, the first batch of R-160B's that were delivered from KRC in 2007 were delivered to and processed at Coney Island Inspection House, where they ultimately entered service on and . The R-160A-1's were initially delivered at 207 Street but processed at East New York, where they went into service on the old and later as well as (after a partial CBTC upgrade) . As the program proceeded, later R-160s of all types were delivered to 207, then processed at Pitkin, then tested from Jamaica for or East New York for . . This is manly because of storage space and "pit time" considerations at the various facilities.
  4. 3 points
    Enjoy a heaping of R32s, some R46s, and a few R179s (including the 179 A train) at Fulton Street, taken over about two hours yesterday evening.
  5. 3 points
    Is it really needed? The and overlap their entire length, never being more than a block apart, and if you really want that transfer it's available at Park Pl or Times Square.
  6. 3 points
    Enjoy this ride down the Fulton Street Express on an R32 train, from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Euclid Av. Highlights include racing an R179 from Nostrand to Kingston-Throop
  7. 2 points
    Absolutely. A couple of points: Whitestone is low density; we shouldn't be building subway service over there at all; College Point is an isolated medium clump of density, the Northern Blvd/PW corridor is much denser College Point is already a 15-25 minute bus ride to the subway, which isn't terrible at all It is incredibly awkward to serve both Flushing and College Point using the , and the density of College Point is not strong enough to where I'd suggest diverting half or a third of trains there Hugging the shoreline will not interface well with the bus network, while a Northern Blvd line will have a 15-20 minute bus catchment area covering Whitestone, College Point, and Queens as far south as Hillside College Point is not on the way to anything dense unless you're tunneling to Castle Hill/Soundview, which is well outside the scope of any 100 year plan In my ideal world, future extensions in Queens should be planned so that no section of Queens is more than a 15 minute bus ride from the train so that all of Queens can be upzoned. This basically requires Northern Blvd, Hillside, and SE Queens. College Point makes more sense sitting on a second cross-borough line replicating the Q44. Density map for reference:
  8. 2 points
    Adding a free transfer would force the City to have to further subsidize ferry riders. These things cost $$$$$. It is not free, that's why. Aside from that it may overburden the system. They already have more demand than anticipated and have had to scramble to provide more ferry service. This is an EXPENSIVE service to subsidize, but one that should be done, and expanded SLOWLY over time to control costs, otherwise the City risks having to get rid of the ferry again as it had to previously because the cost was too high to run the service. That's the issue here. If the City had the money to further subsidize the ferry with free transfers, then they could add more money to fix the subways. Just saying... If anything, the City needs to start reigning in its spending. They have been spending BILLIONS more each year and if they don't start putting away money we could very well be back to seeing the City in the 70s when NYC went BROKE. All it takes is a recession. The City is already taxing the hell out of us as it is, pushing more and more people to FLEE to places with lower taxes. When you have fewer people to tax.... Guess what... There's less money for such programs like the ferry, and other things.
  9. 2 points
    Two cars are in CI for fire safety training (indoors), one or two are used by the FDNY for training and there's about two in 207 last time I saw them. Fact is, "active Fleet" or not, the majority of them are still on TA property. So the 179s start at 3010. On a side note, I find it a cool statistic that all of the Bombardier-built "B" division cars are numbered in the 3000's
  10. 2 points
    Of course crowding will happen during the rush — I mean they call it rush hour for a reason, right? The issue is relative crowding. Concentrating your loads onto a small set of lines sets up single points of failure, and makes said lines operationally ‘brittle’ (higher dwells, less crowding margin). That contributes to disruption impact in that more people are impacted than is necessary and in that the disruption itself is wont to cascade temporally. Adding the is definitionally creating service diversity — BMT riders have more Lower Manhattan options, which in turn helps keep them off other lines. And then, of course, 4th local gets more frequency. The key is to do it well (so schedule things properly) and to run the service at a high enough frequency that it is relevant. The Brown M suffered especially from the latter flaw — it’s 6-7tph simply wasn’t adequate for folks who had access to the 20tph IRT lines at Barclays, or even the 10tph . Frequency (and also service hours — off peak service allows folks to really rely on a service option) begets ridership. Do I believe that more service is *the* solution here? No, I hope to have made that clear in my posts in the other thread. But there’s more to it than just service levels.
  11. 2 points
    I'm not sure enough to answer that but from what said on here it looks like it maybe the cause. The B46 couldn't fit them for layover and they always have been evaluated over and over to accommodate artics. Personally in my opinion they probably just need to push the last stop further up on broadway like ending at Myrtle avenue. But thats for another thread to discuss at.
  12. 2 points
    Yikes. I see your point when you say that, being that it’s the Rockaways, specifically the majority of the Q22 that we’re talking about. I was almost falling asleep when I wrote that. So that error is fixed.
  13. 2 points
    Yep, someone over on r/nyc who's in production said they're frantically trying to get this car back because it's definitely not supposed to be in service with the prop signs.
  14. 2 points
    To add on, if an ailing person on a train were to become sicker or worse in an effort to maintain service, the MTA would face lawsuits left, right and center for failure to provide immediate medical assistance by carting the person across the line. If a person is sick on the train, there isn't much the crew can do other than hold the train and wait for EMS to arrive. That's why one of the items in the Subway Action Plan is/was to expand the number of EMS teams within the subway to minimize the impact of these types of events.
  15. 2 points
    Seriously, you don't think about sick passengers delaying things until you see it happen. I got to 74 St-Broadway, and heard someone had passed out on the platform, and saw a man unresponsive very close to the platform edge, with people surrounding him, including the C/R. Someone started to do CPR, and after maybe 10 minutes, EMS arrived and took him away, but service was already well past screwed by then, as it was the 7 during rush hour. Still, it made me realize that sick passenger could be anything from someone who just puked all over a car to someone who might be having a stroke or a heart attack and needs urgent medical attention. Quite possibly he might've not made it in the end; I'm not sure, but I can say that taking him all the way to Hudson Yards would not have been the right course of action, as you suggested they should do.
  16. 2 points
    Slow down there, you might wanna take off your tinfoil hat...
  17. 2 points
    the nail clipper... THIS shouldn't be a thing on any bus or train. i couldn't sit there and let that happen. I'd absolutely be compelled to say something (as a customer. however, when I'm on the clock, i won't get involved)
  18. 2 points
    Why though? Again, this isn't a revolutionary new car design. Almost identical trains have been operating on the 8th Avenue local for over a decade now, as well as the 8th Avenue local since 2013. When it's a jump to a wholly new car class across the system, sure, they should advertise it. However, when it's just more of the same, just with different finishes, it's seems like more of a waste to advertise existing technology that has been in place since the mid-2000s. That's just me though.
  19. 1 point
    the numbers are right but you made a very small counting error: it's 7 (Disclaimer: I don't mean this in a pejorative way)
  20. 1 point
    @Via Garibaldi 8 is right. Before 2015, the SB X10 ended at 11:45 PM on Saturdays. September 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20150905150656/http://web.mta.info/nyct/bus/schedule/xpress/x010cur.pdf (Last trip 12:10 AM) August 2014: https://web.archive.org/web/20150427184005/http://web.mta.info/nyct/bus/schedule/xpress/x010cur.pdf (Last trip 11:45 PM)
  21. 1 point
    Is the R179 train 30-day test is up? Or that there's more days till completion
  22. 1 point
    Just for confirmation purposes, 7550 is on the Bx36 right now. It's still at West Farms.
  23. 1 point
    That is incorrect. What you or whoever spotted it saw was actually 7558.
  24. 1 point
    I work out of that depot. Just like my uncle said(co worker), we have those buses there to remind us what don't we want to pull in and for drivers to start the service quickly/drag them to a terminal, extra shifts. Or even leave them as spare buses in case of any bus break downs, that a supervisor have to bring another one after the broke down units gets towed. Every depot does the same too.
  25. 1 point
    Don't wanna come off as cruel (who does?), but crayoning routes all over a bus map for the sake of doing it solves nearly nothing. I don't see how these ideas are needed at all. Put effort into your plans if you actually want something meaningful to happen. We might as well starve the troll I guess...
  26. 1 point
    I'm not understanding why you're asking us about local 'x' routes, but opt to use a completely different route type (SBS) as an example of something that should be making less stops..... You don't create a different route type (or a variant of a different route type) for the same route for the purposes of passenger distribution though... There wouldn't be any Bx12 equivalent to that of a Q43 gunning straight to the train station (179th) from Springfield.... The riding pattern on the Bx12 wouldn't support anything like that.... It's a route that cuts through the heart of the entire borough which serves too many subway stations for that..... My thing about this whole thing is, an 'x' variant of an SBS waters down the purpose of SBS..... For all that's being conveyed in his example, those trips may as well be short turned SBS' running b/w PBP & Isham-207th (making all regular SBS stops b/w that stretch), because as you stated earlier, skipping those 4 stops won't make no real difference - Especially considering what Fordham rd. is traffic-wise during the rush.....
  27. 1 point
    Does daylight savings affect service overnight? (Ex. Bus departs C.I at 1AM and gets to Spring Crk Twrs at 2AM but it's 3AM today with a B82 to depart C.I at 2AM)
  28. 1 point
    Also, it’d force you to reduce and service to 10tph to fit the 20 of service through 53 and 6th local. This is essentially why you can’t move the without reorganizing the rest of the B division.
  29. 1 point
    Regarding this Bx12x SBS discussion: So this is essentially a "super-express"? If so, i suppose it would be nice since faster service is always a good thing. That said, from my experience with the Bx12 SBS, the issue isn't so much speed but rather the traffic flow and delays due to crowding. I admit I don't use it daily so take my opinion for what it's worth but all those delays around fordham, etc in the western bronx are all the fault of car congestion and even though being able to pass up a stop does of course save some time, would it amount to enough of a savings over the entire route to justify either the cost of adding extra Bx12x SBS trips, or reducing Bx12 SBS service, leaving a few stops with more infrequent service and worse crowding? I suppose if you sliced a few more stops to turn it more into a Co-Op city/pelham bay to manh/west bronx route as opposed to being more useful to local travel, you could cut eastchester (williamsbridge also seems "cut-able" but that transfer to the 5 train is more valuable IMO than the transfer to the BxM10 at eastchester) and grand concourse... If the Fordham/Pelham corridor is to become more useful, then something about traffic mitigation (Jerome to the Plaza, as well as the lead in to the University Heights Bridge, especially on the Bx side) and addressing overcrowding would be more appropriate or beneficial to a wider range of people
  30. 1 point
    One of the few things Jay Walder got right was that he recognized that the MTA would never make a good app on its own, so he just opened up the data feeds for everybody else. I just use the Transit App.
  31. 1 point
    Yes that and citing reliability. They want these buses moving and not getting bogged down up by 57th Street. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Other developments: -Surpassed 1,000 members last weekend. -Awaiting the April service improvements for the SIM network. It is not clear what that will entail, but with the local Staten Island group, we support the following: -Restoration of X4 -Restoration of X14 and X18 -Restoration of X7 -Restoration of SIM2 There have been a LITANY of complaints about the SIM10 and service being cut back too early. Additionally, the loss of numerous SIM9 trips has caused long waits and gaps in service. We’ve also seen continued overcrowding on the following lines: SIM1, SIM2, SIM5 SIM1C - SIM1C overcrowding is offen on weekends and late at night, due to gaps in service and long waits. Gaps in service on the SIM22. -We continue to monitor the Union Turnpike corridor. We were told that the QM2 and QM20 will be looked at, but we also will be following up on the run times for thr Union Turnoike corridor this weekend in our comments re: the most recent meeting.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    The is running express N/B on the Dyre Ave line this weekend!
  34. 1 point
    Transfers don't mean much when you have to endure a very long bus ride. Regardless all of those routes provide easy access to the G train. Riding the B/Q to a slow bus route saves walking between transfers but ultimately it's not going to save much time. --- and for canarsie, the b60 is an absolutely horrible route; having people transfer between those two would take forever.
  35. 1 point
    Fredrick Wells 2? What happened to Fredrick Wells 1? (jk)
  36. 1 point
    You cannot be denied a comfort, if you gotta go then you gotta go. It happened to me on the 6 once at the BB loop, I knew that there was no way I’d be able to make it back to Parkchester holding it in (keep in mind on lines like the J and 6 you don’t get off the train at the end) called it in and went at the bridge. It’s pretty shady of them to post that to put the public against us, but I’ll leave it at that...
  37. 1 point
    Exactly. We're looking at this from the wrong angle. Even discounting the extreme costs to rebuild and/or bury the existing elevated lines, they themselves are not the issue here. The problem here is that pieces of the structures are flaking off like dead skin, but unlike dead skin, these rotting pieces of wood, steel and metal are quite dangerous when they fall to the ground, the last two incidents involving such a scenario have proven quite soundly. No. What needs to be done is that the MTA must secure their infrastructure and prevent such incidents from happening in the first place. Whether that involves walking the length of every elevated track both above and below the structures remains to be seen, but they cannot continue to treat this as a one-off occurrence and simply ignore it.
  38. 1 point
    There's nothing preventing such a route. I was just trying to eliminate the logjam at Whitehall St with terminating trains, while at the same time preserving the amount of service along Astoria and Broadway. Running the same level of service in Astoria with just one route while keeping Whitehall terminal in play is a potential disaster that I was trying to avoid. Also, retaining the as a service to 71 Avenue would still deal with the double merge at Queens Plaza between the and Astoria , thus potentially delaying those lines. Not to put a damper on this, but as this is not the proposals thread, I'd prefer we keep these ideas somewhere within the realm of reality. If a plan to fix 4th Avenue ever came to fruition as suggested in the opening post, it's not going to be done via a costly and invasive connection between the Montague tunnels and the Fulton St line. @RR503 While piss-poor operations due play a major role in service degradation, the routes themselves don't help matters at times, the being the most prominent example. Right now, the merges with other lines a total of eight times in one direction at the height of service. Combine that with the Forest Hills terminal ops (the only terminal that turns two full length services at its peak) and the timers situation you mentioned and we have the situation we're currently mired in. In sending the back to Astoria, along with sending the to 96 Street, eliminates all but two of those merge points, both of which are only temporary due to the 4th Avenue tunnel project. As mentioned above, it also eliminate that potential for a worsened Whitehall terminal issue if the present Queens and the current both have to terminate in Manhattan if the Brooklyn were to be replaced by a Nassau service. Obviously, such an approach cannot be applied to every situation, which is why as you've mentioned, we must address the larger issue at hand, operations in general and the infrastructure, both of which have not really changed much in the past few decades. Of course, that's unfortunately more of a longer term project given the current political climate, which is why my idea is more of an immediate fix. On a side-note, the ran much better before they started screwing around with it. As someone who's used the for the past few years until fairly recently, I can attest to how poorly the line is now compared to years prior. The car situation was of course unavoidable since the needed those former 142As for CBTC and Transit was in no shape to purchase 400 more brand new cars for the service, but reducing service along the line because of the Second Ave line caused the service to tank. The fact that the runs to the east side does very little for anyone outside of that relatively small section between 96th Street and roughly 68th Street. Bring the service back to it's former two minute intervals between 3 Av-138 St and Brooklyn Bridge and the line's performance will bounce back.
  39. 1 point
    Some of these aren't exclusive to the express bus, but to keep it on topic... - The shopper, I find to be more of an SI express rider thing than anything, especially on the old x1/x10/x17 (IDK how "the shoppers" are broken up on the SIM routes).... These types, much like the yakker, also won't shut up to save their lives... "Don't touch my f***ing bag, a**hole!" is their mantra.... Smh, I would always dread when those types would get on any bus I was ever on...... - The recliner is the person I tend to get into it with on an express bus the most, obviously because of my height.... I'd go as far as to say most passenger conflicts on an express bus are due to this (well this, and the quote-unquote yakker)..... There's a line between simply wanting legroom & being an inconsiderate jackass...... - The rider w/ no metrocard is a PITA, and at times I would feel like they're trolling everyone on the bus, as well as the MTA in & of itself..... - The confused tourist/manhattan local transient is a mild nuisance.... The ones that are hell bent on arguing with the b/o, I can see where a current passenger might want to get up out of their seat & shove them off the bus though..... In my experiences, you usually hear audible "oh come on's", "let's GO", "I gotta get home", retorts of that sort..... - The loud music lover, I don't think I've ever encountered on any express bus.... - The brusher & the nail clipper are one in the same; "the public preener".... - The seafood lover? Alright, now this is just plain stupid...... Even if you wanted to generalize it to that of simply eating on an express bus, it's really not a widespread problem enough to put a sort of PSA out there to be on the lookout for the eater (which has a better ring to it anyway than the seafood lover)..... ---------------------------- Oh FFS, I can't do this anymore..... The author of this article must have gotten more schillings on the dollar for each item listed or something, because you really don't have to be wary of this many types of people on an express bus..... And as I alluded to in the prior post, the attempts at humor in this piece was like Giancarlo Stanton in last year's playoffs - a bunch of damn swings & misses....
  40. 1 point
    I didn't find that comical in the slightest, either..... This entire article is laced with droll humor that's rather ineffective AFAIC.... This particular "person you'd never want to meet on the MTA express bus" in question, reinforces the stigma that express buses have (of that of transporting elitists)..... I understand wanting to be liberated - and in saying that, while IDK when this particular trend started (more people willingly doing it with no shame/embarrassment anyway), the openly/publicly preening bit I find to be quite disturbing..... My interest in you immediately drops down to zero if I see you putting on makeup, combing your hair, and even applying deodorant on some bus or some train.... Not cute at all.... I'd argue it's not even lady-like.....
  41. 1 point
    I'll do QBL first since that's actually the easier problem to solve. If the is ever taken off QBL, then the only feasible service pattern is running the via 63 St (it stays local in Queens). This frees up capacity for the along the QBL local tracks and 53 St. Deinterline the and the along 8 Ave and every pair of tracks through Midtown is running at full capacity. Broadway is the trickiest trunk to schedule, assuming all trains run to the same northern terminals at all times. All Broadway local trains should be running via 60 St and Montague, while all Broadway express trains should be running via 63 St / SAS and the Bridge. This scheduling works on weekdays and weekdays, the latter assuming the or runs on QBL during weekends. Late nights Broadway only has a SAS train via the Bridge and an Astoria - Coney Island train via Montague, the latter of which won't exist if the goes to 96 St. Honestly, the best solution is to run the to 96 St + to Astoria at all times, which will increase costs but will dramatically improve service along SAS + Broadway.
  42. 1 point
    Off the top of my head, some easy targets: -rolling stock (numerous trips have been cancelled over the last couple years because of R46s with issues) -dwell times (also attributable to rolling stock; if you have an R160 in the PM rush and the previous train is a 75 footer, you will catch up to them by 36th if not earlier. The whole segment through Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn on an R46 in rush hour is a disaster) -dispatchers holding trains for unnecessary connections which makes them even more late (one example: holding an train which was already at least 5 late at DeKalb for both a and the following ) -sharing tracks with the from 59th to 36th and that godawful merge at 36th southbound that is the bane of my existence. -sitting in Cortlandt waiting for a to move that's also waiting for the previous to leave Whitehall -34th Street interlocking, nuff said -11th Street cut, nuff said -the conga line at Forest Hills As for weekends, other than the "12 minute" headways I don't have an explanation for how much the sucks other than it's a three borough local. 20 minute waits have become the norm so it's become virtually unusable.
  43. 1 point
    Assuming that the R42s retire this yr, you can use all numbers ranging from 3950-5000, about 1050 cars able to be used. Then after R44-46 retirement the other main gaps are 100-1100 (1000 cars) and 5201-6300 (1100 cars), not even including the R32s to be replaced as R211s come in. You could make a main order out of one of these consists and put an option order in another if you wanted to like the R142s. Like starting with the R211s, we start with 501-1035, then with the remaining cars we could start the option R211s with 5201 and go up to 6278 (renumber R46s if you have to). (Perfect fit almost with these numbers) Now getting to the R262, the main reason fleet numbers were brought up, 3350-5000 are completely free after the R211s replace the R32s. This is more than 1500 cars so there is a way to use these numbers starting with the 3300's. That's enough basic math trivia with the fleet. Just wanted to share how I saw a way to use these fleet numbers.
  44. 1 point
    I was at Hoyt for the R160s. Interestingly, they did it at my home station, Kew Gardens–Union Turnpike for the R110As. Car: R-110A (Kawasaki, 1992) 8010 Photo by: Doug Grotjahn Collection of: Joe Testagrose Date: 12/5/1992 [THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE TRANSIT IMAGES OF ALL TIME – It is my home station, A Division cars are on the B Division, requiring gap fillers, old signage can be seen, including an old sign for the Interboro Parkway, you can see the small Union T'pke signs on the columns, and you can see an old E sign on the express track on the right. https://www.newspapers.com/clip/26222745/daily_news/
  45. 1 point
    Just an opinion, don't go shooting arrows at me (just kidding of course) but: I personally never really considered a Nassau Street Line running via 4th Avenue again because before 2010, ridership along West End and 4th Avenue was very minimal. However considering how most Brooklyn riders transfer to the & IRT lines between DeKalb Avenue and 59th Street, it sort of seems like the most practical option. Possible Option: : Jamaica Center <> Bay Ridge-95 St via Jamaica Skip-Stop Express/Nassau Street-4th Avenue Local, Rush Hours. Other times, Jamaica Center <> Bay Ridge-95th Street via Jamaica-Nassau Street-4th Avenue Local. Pros: Due to minimal interlining (only interlining with the at Essex Street and Myrtle Avenue-Broadway versus the interlining with the at Queens Plaza, at the 60th Street Tube, at 34th Street-Herald Square, at Whitehall Street and more recently at 36th Street after 7PM due to Work Train assembly and at 59th & 36th Streets due to construction that causes the to stop at 45th & 53rd Street) delays and horrendous service gaps of 15 minutes+ would be reduced. Direct South Brooklyn & Nassau Street service would be restored. Direct South Brooklyn <> North Brooklyn service (believe it or not, I know many people including myself that would highly benefit from this). Nassau Street and Lower Manhattan Broadway stations are very close in proximity, minimal impact to Lower Manhattan riders. Direct access to major hubs such as the Fulton Street Transit Center, City Hall & more Chinatown access. If the few Brooklyn Heights/DUMBO riders really rely on Broadway Service, a transfer would be available at DeKalb Avenue or Canal Street to Broadway Services. Bay Ridge and 4th Avenue riders would finally ride on newer upgraded fleet, a step up from, the dingy R46's. Cons: Correct me if I am wrong but I believe as a terminal, Bay Ridge-95th Street can only turn around so many trains an hour (I think the number is around 10). The combined run a total 12 trains an hour (a frequency of 5 minutes). If 10 trains per hour is the maximum capacity that Bay Ridge-95th Street can turn around, 2 and/or trips would have to be short turned at Broad Street, causing a slight gap in Rush Hour Service in Southern Brooklyn. If the short turn option is a no-go, then the would have to be reduced to a combined 10 trains per hour (a frequency of 6 minutes) which doesn't seem bad at first glance, but riders along the Jamaica Line would experience 12 minute frequencies (average 6 minute wait times) at Skip-Stop Stations. I don't think Jamaica riders would be too enthusiastic about that. However I believe it can be done because if you recall the was in fact going to be reduced to 10 trains per hour as apart of the 14 Street Tube Shutdown Plan to make room for beefed up service. The would deal with more interlining due to all temporary construction along 4th Avenue, may cause delays to ripple along the entire Jamaica-Nassau Line. May ironically turn into another long Local Queens through Brooklyn line where a delay in Queens may cause delays to ripple all the way to Bay Ridge, thus solving nothing. : Forest Hills-71 Avenue <> Whitehall Street, all times except Late Nights (see ). Pros: Less Interlining = more reliable service. Short, Sweet and to the point Local line connecting Queens and Manhattan. Cons: May have to short turn trips at Canal Street during Peak-Hours if Whitehall can't handle the 7.5 trains per hour (frequency of 8 minutes) that the currently runs during Rush Hours. (May not be an issue considering the runs a single train per hour less.) Reduced service south of Canal Street (back to post-2010 through pre-2016 frequencies) with only the serving lower Manhattan. : Astoria-Ditmars Blvd <> Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue via Broadway Local/4th Avenue Express, all times except Late Nights. Late Nights, Astoria-Ditmars Blvd <> Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue via Whitehall Street to compensate for loss of late night service south of Canal Street (unless Late Night Queens through Manhattan service could be considered). Peak Service would have to be beefed up from 7.5 trains per hour (frequency of 8 minutes) to about 12 trains per hour (frequency of 6 minutes) to compensate for the loss of the . Pros: Extra service along the route, especially for Sea Beach Riders. Cons: May need to Short-Turn trains at Kings Highway or 86th Street-Gravesend during Peak Hours (not a huge deal in my opinion) due to beefed up service. Beefed headways can cause more congestion on the Manhattan Bridge and Merge from the Express to the Local tracks along Broadway, delaying service. Absorption of the would upset the many lovers of the line (including I). : Retired, much to my dismay, but if the MTA comply's with Bay Ridge's demands, I feel there is just no room for the in this scenario. In conclusion, there is no perfect way to solve the unpredictable service along the 4th Avenue Line. Chances are, the best service pattern for the aforementioned riders... is the one we currently have now! It remains a very damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. It is very possible that there is no perfect solution with the way the subway system was built over a century ago. There just isn't enough time or money to reconfigure the subway system to meet 2019's demands. Thats just my 2 cents, I don't feel that the is going to rearrange service, it is probably fine left just the way it is, even though it is pretty crappy. It's the best that can be done.
  46. 1 point
    Here is my plan for Canal Street, which I think I have thoroughly gone through. DISCLAIMER: I am sure that there are mistakes in here, and oversights. I am not an engineer, and have based this design based on the 3-D layout of the station. There might be basements, pipes, power lines, sewer lines, or other things in the way. If anyone knows of anything of the like please call me out. If there are any egregious mistakes do so as well. If anyone can think of a better way to accomplish the goals of making this station ADA-accessible while drastically reducing crowding at the station and making transfers easier, please post it. This is meant to be a discussion starter. One of the goals of this layout was to reduce the number of elevators needed. The Centre Street Passageway reduces the number of elevators on the two Nassau Street Platforms from 4 to 2. This passageway makes it easier for people needing elevators as the platforms would not be constrained with two pairs of elevators. Here is my not so great map of the general plan. Pentagons are elevators by the way. Canal Street Plan 1 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr Levels: L-1 Surface/Station House L-2 Nassau/Lexington/Broadway Main Line platforms/Mezzanines A, B, and C L-3 Bridge Platform/New Canal Street transfer passageway L-4 Centre Street Passageway New entrances: - North end of IRT and BMT platforms to Howard Street and Hester Street - South end of IRT platforms to Walker Street New Passageways: - Centre Street Passageway o Paralleling the Nassau platforms at a level lower down and located at L-4 o Provides access to the Downtown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase J and Elevator J o Provides access to the Uptown BMT Nassau Platform by Staircase K and Elevator K o Provides access to the Uptown Bridge Platform by Staircase H and Elevator H o Provides access to the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway by Staircase I and Elevator I - Canal Street Transfer Passageway o Between Broadway and Baxter Street, paralleling the Downtown Bridge platform, providing direct access to the BMT Main Line platforms, the IRT platforms, and to the BMT Nassau platforms via stairs or elevator down to the Centre Street Passageway o Includes the crossunder passageway between the BMT Main Line platforms, which will be widened. o Access to the Downtown BMT Main Line platform via Staircase A and Elevator A o Access to the Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and Uptown BMT Bridge Platform via Staircase B and Elevator B o Direct and level access to the Downtown Bridge platform is provided. o Access to the Downtown IRT platform via Staircase E and Elevator E o Access to the Uptown IRT platform via Staircase G and Elevator E o Access down to the Centre Street Passageway via Staircase I and Elevator I o Access to the Southwest Stationhouse via Staircase N and Elevator I Mezzanines: A – Connects the Uptown Broadway Main Line Platform (same level) with the Uptown Bridge platform with Elevator C and Staircase C at this mezzanine’s eastern end – Provides access to the Downtown Broadway Main Line Platform and the IRT and BMT Nassau Platforms via Staircase B and Elevator B to the Canal Street Transfer Passageway B – Connects the Downtown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms - Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase D and Elevator D - Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase E and Elevator E C – Connects the Uptown IRT Platform (same level) with the Bridge platforms - Connects to the Uptown Bridge Platform with Staircase F and Elevator F - Connects to the Downtown Bridge Platform and the Canal Street Transfer Passageway with Staircase G and Elevator G Stationhouses: A – Northeast corner of Centre Street and Canal Street o Elevator H provides direct access to the Uptown Nassau platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform B – Southwest corner of Centre Street and Canal Street o Elevator I provides direct access to the Downtown Nassau platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform List of Elevators: A – Between the Street Level, Uptown BMT Main Line platform/Mezzanine A and the Transfer Passageway B – Between the Downtown BMT Main Line platform and the Transfer Passageway C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator) E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform (Extension of existing elevator) G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) and Canal Street Transfer Passageway (Back side) H – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Uptown Bridge Platform, the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House I – From the Centre Street Passageway to the Downtown Bridge Platform (Front side) /Canal Street Transfer Passageway (back side), the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House Staircases: A – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and the Downtown BMT Main Line Platform (L–2) B – Between Canal Street Transfer Passageway (L–3) and Mezzanine A/Uptown BMT Main Line platform (L–2) C – Between Mezzanine A and the Uptown Bridge Platform D – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Uptown Bridge Platform E – Between Downtown IRT Platform and Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway F – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Uptown Bridge Platform G – Between the Uptown IRT platform and the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway H – From the Uptown Bridge Platform down to the Centre Street Passageway I – From the Downtown Bridge Platform/Canal Street Transfer Passageway down to the Centre Street Passageway J – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Downtown Nassau Platform K – Between the Centre Street Passageway and the Uptown Nassau Platform L – Between the Uptown Nassau Platform and the Northeast Station House M – Between the Downtown Nassau Platform and the Southwest Station House N – Between the Canal Street Transfer Passageway and the Southwest Station House Remove: - Staircase between the Downtown Bridge platform and Mezzanine A; access to Broadway entrances and Main Line platforms preserved via elevator and stairs to Mezzanine A closer to Broadway Other improvements: - Double width of Bridge platforms - Reopen closed entrances Sources: https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/canal-street-station-3d4c5ff5942242e0babe21e9e7d8d85d https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/Canal St (N)(Q) web.pdf
  47. 1 point
    On a separate front, I mean god forbid you inform the b/o that the wrong signage (opposite direction) is still up..... Enough of them take it personal when a passenger apprises them of that. Also, I'm probably in the minority here, but I never cared for the whole "code breaking" bit.....
  48. 1 point
    Can't say they don't sound nice, though!
  49. 1 point
    I'm just glad it's not going to look like this: I like the look of the current MetroCards, but that tap card looks horrible.
  50. 1 point
    Issues with that plan: 1. There is no transfer at Jamaica Ave. 2. No Rockaway Park <A> 3. There is no stop at Atlantic Avenue to transfer to the LIRR Atlantic Branch, which has an abandoned subway stop at Woodhaven. 3. It is impossible to have such a terminal layout at Roosevelt. Look at how the provisions for the Winfield Spur ACTUALLY exist 3. Look at my comment. It is impossible to do this.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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