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.


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 03/23/2019 in all areas

  1. 18 points
    That shows how little some folks know about the M35 and the areas it serves. 1. So we are just going to forget that the line also uses 40ft buses too? The only reason artics tend to be out on the line often is because that's what's often available at the depots for pullout. There's a higher spare factor of artics, so they can spare 4 of those or 4 40ft buses for the line. The artics also do not run 7 days a week on the line. You'll often see a mix of both fleets on the line, it's a matter of what they pull out for the line. 2. Where do we begin...... (A): Randalls Island & Wards Island are a lot more occupied than most people think, people actually live and work out there for starters. (B): Homeless shelters, hospitals, a wastewater treatment plant, over 50 athletic fields for training/events, police & fire academy training facilities and much more are out there. Lots of people go to those areas for work and other things. (C): Let's not also forget about the Electric Zoo and the other festivals that occur out there. Yeah, the X80 goes out there for those, but people also use the M35 for that too.... Some of you fans need to stop looking at maps and explore outside of your comfort zone to understand WHY things are the way they are.....most of you fans only come up with these ideas by looking at route and system maps....and that has to stop, quite honestly. That suggestion is basically emulating what the MTA did with the M5....and look at how that turned out. Could you imagine how some of these routes would look if they were all extend based on looking at how short one route is and merging it with another, longer route and by looking at maps? That would be torturous to a degree!
  2. 16 points
    From the FB Group "Transit Photos and Vidoes" via Mr. Edwards. Originally from Kawasaki: Looks like they'll occupy the 4000s.
  3. 13 points
    This is actually the non-operational mockup, similar to the very first photos of the R179s that were leaked in 2014. So this particular car won't see service, it's just used to confirm maintainability, build quality, spec compliance, etc. Also, this is the first of three similar but functionally different mockups (this one is for the R211A, and there will be one for the S and T, since there are functional differences between the three classes). Mock-up review for the R211A is underway and continuing through next week. After that comes climate room testing in May. So far so good!
  4. 12 points
    MBTA and MTA are in talks to do a fleet swap between the Red Line and Crosstown as CRRC cars are delivered to Boston as a budget move for Fast Forward. R68s will goto Q and W, R46 reefed, and R179s to Franklin Shuttle and H train.
  5. 12 points
    At this point I couldn’t care less. Yeah it’s a somber moment but they are 20 and 21 years old. I have one of my own anyway so I’m content. It was a good era. Just means it’s almost time for me to retire. Nothing will ever beat The Master of The Snow. It will definitely go down in history as the most durable bus ever made. Other than the fact that 90% of that article is inaccurate, it is what it is. FYI, Hybrids actually break down at a higher rate than the RTS.... That’s clearly why they are still here..... If it was up to MTA and the engineering department a small reserve fleet would have been here for a while.
  6. 11 points
    No disrespect, let’s leave this area to the professionals and business managers. Who cares how long it lasts? Anyone who knows how to effectively run a business. They were the best buses overall in EVERY category except the wheel chair lift, driver comfort and rear seat comfort. They perform best on the road, had the best suspension, and nothing will ever perform as good in bad weather or torrential rains. They are the most durable and longest lasting buses ever made, and have a higher reliability rating than any new bus to date. They had the most powerful and most optimized engine/trans combo of any coach to date. They are the easiest to maintain, and cost the lowest to maintain. Many of the parts are not made anymore and have not been for a while and maintenance was still the lowest cost of any bus in the fleet. If you were to build a brand new RTS low floor with with new face, and new style it would still outperform anything on the road right now hands down. My person RTS runs circles around ANY bus in the MTA fleet including MCI’s and Prevosts. You may not understand the significance of this America Icon, but we all do, especially MTA maintenance and management. Hence why we still have so many, why there are so many in the fleet, and why it’s the main topic on the Bus IQ Test on every Information screen on all these new buses. The Orion V only had more space for the driver and the in the last row. That’s all. Even though I like them a lot, the structure was trash and they were nowhere near as reliable. MTA likely would have never gotten them if it wasn’t for the Flxible disaster. An upgrade is not always an upgrade. Maintenance records have been unable to match the ones of this to this this day in 2019 and this bus is a 1976 concept. The only other bus that will last ALMOST as long is a Nova LFS and that’s because it uses the exact same body design philosophy. The Cummins will just never last as long as a Detroit Diesel, or be as easy to maintain. I mean the engine leaks oil by design for Christ sake. Pure Detroit genius just like the RTS, Old Look, and New Look buses. Thats a classic era of transit that unfortunately too many of you are too young to remember or appreciate. Sure all these new buses are pretty, but if you knew anything about maintenance and value there would be a different opinion. Another fun fact of the day, Altoona stated publicly that they will miss the bus dearly as it was to date the easies bus ever to test and certify, and maintains the best in-service uptime record, and ease-of maintenance status. And the closing fact, 5249 will go down as the most historic RTS now inducted into the Museum Fleet. Looking pretty in 1999 delivery colors, she was the last model designated the RTS T80-206 ever made. As to modernization, as Lil Wayne would say, “it ain’t broke, don’t break it.” Because it was a fact. The RTS was born from that very bus and later assumed it’s title as best. Sales, satisfaction and maintenance records hail them the King and Queen of transit. What in the word are you talking about? Gleason doesn’t have any buses to spare. Have you been somewhere under a rock? The XN60’s didn’t just come in yesterday, or anytime recently for that matter, and quite a few buses were ALREADY transferred to West Farms from Gleason. Leave this to the MTA and the professionals please, because nothing that you said there makes logistical or monetary sense. Incentivize the NG? You can’t be serious..... But you are serious..... 😴 Not only is it not possible, but it’s also a waste of money. We don’t own any chargers or electric buses yet so they’re is nothing to fill in a gap. These are engineering test buses that do not belong to us, and we will soon have our own anyway. In the meanwhile it’s not just that simple to just up and move chargers like legos or something. Maintenance is not trained on them, MTA mechanics cannot work on them. Any agency/person that leases buses/cars have to have mechanics that are mandated by the manufacturer to perform all maintenance. An entire maintenance program is being designed around these buses because they are unlike anything we have when it comes to the power train and the batteries. We don’t have enough duty cycle data to loan these buses out either. If they didn’t need them why would they have them? You gotta learn the inner workings of these things. Spares, preventive maintenance, scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, accidents...... Buses don’t just run every day of their lives. They have to be pulled from service. Not to mention we are in the biggest fleet overhaul cycle in a very long time. Buses need to be upgraded to WiFi and have Info screens installed on top of all that. SC for example just got 9 OG’s on loan. The have 56 C40’s to be exact. All of which are needed for service and spares. At rush it’s actually about 42 in rotation which leaves room for only 14 buses to be for spare on in the shop for maintenance. 9 of them are now out of service for maintenance. For example on Friday just past, every bus was in service except 4 C40’s at some time during the day. Yes JG needs all of theirs as well. The B35 requires all its artics and 4 standards. It’s 8pm on a Saturday and there are currently 118 C40’s and XN40’s in active service as I type this. Now ass that up and tell me how many they need at rush. Same for CP, with 73 in service right now out of 157. Not only that, they had at least 3 buses that were road called. That’s unplanned. Now they need to go in the shop and have 3 to replace them go out on the run line.
  7. 10 points
    Good afternoon fellas! After a long hard decision, I have decided to retire from NYCTF for multiple reasons. I’ve been extremely busy lately, and have a business to tend to. I will try to comment here and there and help out with information when and if I can. It’s been a great 11 years, and I want to thank everyone who helped and contributed to making this place what it is today. I did say long ago that I would retire when the RTS did. I guess that time has finally come!
  8. 10 points
    So remember how I said: Well... Or go here for a PDF, if you prefer. Right now, the width of a given line is proportional only to capacity. Cars/hour will have to be a different iteration. As always, I'm happy to share my work. Please reuse/distribute as you wish. If you want my data or more info, PM me! Corrections/suggestions/comments are more than welcome, too.
  9. 10 points
    Jesus Christ it's just numbers. It's not a big deal. Do you hear others complaining about where the OGs/NGs go in order to keep them sequential? Buses go to depots that need service. Assignments are not based on unit numbers at all. Swear this is really annoying to read every other day.
  10. 10 points
    Considering that I'm rebuilding 1851 pages on the MAIN site of ttmg.org, Watermarking nearly 25,000 photos all while working a full time job and taking care of two buses... I'd say relax and wait a sec.
  11. 9 points
    Yeah Queens does deserve better, but ultimately the goal of these redesigns is to cut costs and "engage" the public so that the can say "see, we gave people what they wanted".
  12. 9 points
  13. 9 points
    Here's my take on operating the 179 on the A line. The good: 1) The train is a rocket ship, after living on 46's and 32's I had to watch my speed because certain areas where the older trains are doing 40, on the 179 it's going 8-10+ miles faster, great! 2) It's new, so the cabs smell fresh & clean. 3) it's shiny. After being on the A for so long, I'm not used to seeing something new...EVER 4) Smiles...When I enter some busy stations, customers are smiling or surprised the A has some new stuff. The cameras come out, they stare, they mouth "is this an A?" 5) Privacy...The cab windows are tinted, less eyeballs on the t/o's sitting down. The bad: 1) The cab is smaller than the 160's On the 160's there was a cut out behind the seat so the seat can go further back. There is no cut out behind the cab seat on a 179. If the t/o is tall or big, it's a problem. Knees hit the console, of you're a big dude the t/o is so close to the console. 2) The cab window sucks. Those cab windows should slide sideways like a 46 or straight down like a 68. Conductors have been complaining about the latch hitting their chins and making it harder for shorter people to see. 3) The placement of the speedometer is near the ceiling or where the air gauge is on a 160. That is the stupidest thing I have ever seen. speedometer and gauges should be eye level like any other normal transportation vehicle. 4) The master controller...THe MC is terrible, the handle is small and you have to put some muscle into holding it while operating which can start to hurt the hand, especially when the t/o is going express. Can't switch from left hand to right hand...terrible 5) The placement of the master controller. The MC is on the right hand side and it's very uncomfortable to operate while doing a long run. Local trip, fine you can rest your hand between stops, but from Howard beach to Broad channel, forget it. 6) The 179's on the C and probably J line...The operating crews cannot hear the automated announcements in their cabs. They fixed this issue with the A-179 supposedly they are correcting this with the C-179's and whatever 179's that are out there. I have more but it's more technical.
  14. 9 points
    Northeast Queens to receive $3 million dollars for increased express bus service Northeast Queens lawmakers announce upcoming transit improvements for outer-borough commuters File photo/QNS A Long Island Rail Road train arriving in Bayside By Carlotta Mohamed/ cmohamed@schnepsmedia.com / Wednesday, April 3, 2019 / 12:30 PM Transit improvements will be made in northeast Queens after state Assembly members Edward Braunstein and Nily Rozic reached an agreement during this year’s 2019-2020 state budget negotiations to offset the impact of congestion pricing on outer-borough commuters. The lawmakers announced on Wednesday upcoming transit improvements including a 20 percent reduction for a Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) monthly pass for commuters in northeast Queens, $3 million in funding for increased express bus service, and $6 million for first-mile/last-mile connections. Rozic said relief in the outer boroughs is long overdue for northeast Queens transit riders who are far too familiar with increasing fares and travel times. “As part of this year’s state budget, it was critical for us to ensure that the needs of our communities were not neglected and that our transit system is fully funded,” said Rozic. “I am grateful for Assemblyman Braunstein’s partnership and look forward to seeing these improvements through their implementation.” The agreement includes a 20 percent reduction in the monthly pass for commuters traveling to and from the following stations: Auburndale, Bayside, Broadway, Douglaston, Flushing-Main Street, Little Neck and Murray Hill. A commuter traveling to and from Penn Station will save nearly $50 a month on their monthly pass. The funding for this fare discount was allocated from the Outer Borough Transit Fund, which was created by the state Legislature last year to assist those who live in areas with limited transit options. “A significant number of northeast Queens LIRR commuters pay over $200 dollars for their monthly pass to travel to Manhattan,” said Braunstein. “I am proud to have joined with Assemblywoman Rozic to secure a 20 percent reduction for these commuters, which will result in a savings of over $500 a year.” https://qns.com/story/2019/04/03/northeast-queens-lawmakers-announce-upcoming-transit-improvements-for-outer-borough-commuters/?fbclid=IwAR3gAcJoqPaMnIncYbuzbUD5vxD7nn-xMomvYmycJIx70VD0n6r32gchXUE @QM1to6Ave @T to Dyre Avenue @ViaWaterViaChurch
  15. 9 points
    I have pruned this thread to split out the capacity discussion related to the Williamsburg Bridge into its own thread. To address something, topic drift is okay, but if you notice the topic has shifted drastically from its original purpose, consider starting a new thread on your own volition. If you are hesitant in doing so for whatever reason, please bring the issue to the attention of the mod staff via PM. I'd like to say we're on the forums all the time watching every thread, but that simply isn't the case. All of us on the mod staff do however receive emails for PMs and reported content here and will thus take care of any necessary items if need be.
  16. 9 points
    That's just plain not true. In 1954 the Williamsburg Bridge handled 26 tph in peak. We currently run 18 tph. Also note that it says the upper limit for the bridge is 32 tph. Better operating practices can support that level of service.
  17. 9 points
    It's obvious the incident is being investigated. To make this seem like an epidemic that the agency is ignoring is absurd. Thread locked.
  18. 8 points
    Because MTA don't do common sense.
  19. 8 points
    I wish the MTA could be more transparent with it's customers and tell us that.. it's been 4 years already..
  20. 8 points
    Some dude bought a bunch of plants on the train...
  21. 8 points
    The algo wanted you to see that ad. 😎
  22. 8 points
    Didn't you just make the second account last week? We gettin Fast and Furious in here?
  23. 7 points
    Given the uproar from those in the 179 thread, I'm bringing the issue of Williamsburg Bridge capacity over here. I hope for this thread to also get good use in discussions about system capacity generally. There's a lot to say on both the historical and current fronts. The offending posts in the other thread begin here. I will be back in the not too distant future with a spreadsheet tabulating maximum historical throughputs on all tracks in the system, as well as current statistics.
  24. 7 points
    You know, I'm all for frank discussions on the nuances of deinterlining, but this is flat out wrong. Rogers Junction is *the* limiter of IRT express capacity; the fact it can only handle 45tph plays a massive role in the crowding issues seen daily on the . To deny that for the sake of some (valid, albeit parochial and reductive) desire to preserve a one seat ride despite the civic costs is...sad. Advocating for what's best for you underpins democracy, but to do so without leaving any room for nuance is at best to engage in disingenuous discourse. I want to return to Rogers' effects on the lines it serves though. The slaughter of area capacity is well established; allow me to add color to reliability claims. This is going to be stringline intensive; sorry for taking up so much space. This AM rush on the -- note the crazy runtime variability and strangely spaced service heading up Lex: This AM rush on the -- again peep the runtime var: Yesterday PM onto Nostrand, once again, it''s all about runtime variability and long dwells at Franklin. Yesterday PM rush -- note how those long dwells drive runtimes from Atlantic to Franklin up: ...but hey, it's not an issue.
  25. 7 points
    Did a bit of fanning here and there. Photos & videos were taken with my Canon 7D Mark II & my Sony RX100 Mark II. I got some more stuff, but it'll be posted on a different time & date. MTA New York City Bus 2019 Nova Bus LFS 8538 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2019 Nova Bus LFS 8527 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2019 Nova Bus LFS 8530 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2018 Nova Bus LFS 8514 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr Some other stuff. MTA New York City Bus 2018 Nova Bus LFS Artic 5513 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2018 New Flyer XN60 "Xcelsior" CNG Artic 1108 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2018 New Flyer XD40 "Xcelsior" 7572 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 1999 Nova Bus RTS-06 5179 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2011 Nova Bus LFS 8070 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2019 New Flyer XD40 "Xcelsior" 7578 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr MTA New York City Bus 2018 Nova Bus LFS Artic 5571 by Shane Ramkissoon, on Flickr
  26. 7 points
    But this is a failure in scheduling, no? There's certainly much to be bemoaned and fixed in the way schedules are written these days -- flagging being accounted for by placing 5 minute holds in convenient places, merges being made to work via the same, OTP being maintained by scheduling asymmetrical runtimes approaching the terminal -- but schedules should be (really, have to be) more than 'guidelines.' The system falls apart if they're just that; merges are thrown off, capacity doesn't meet its expected value, trains fall ahead/behind creating gaps, TOs and CRs don't know if they're under or over performing, etc. Running an unscheduled railroad with the complexity of New York's is a recipe for congestion and chaos on the operational end, and is a disservice to the commitment to a certain level of customer service that is a schedule on the rider's end. I'd argue that we can absolutely say that today's schedules are frequently garbage, but that we shouldn't say that they should be thought of in that way for the future. Honestly, what they should be doing to the entire system is what they did to the IRT last year: taking a close look at runtimes between every station pair for a given time of day, schedule, say, the 60th or 75th percentile runtime from that, and then adjust merges to fit. For the metrics to not get thrown off, they should then just simply report runtimes rather than OTP -- no risk of padding if the metric is absolute. Something else worth looking into is getting more granular schedules. 30 second resolution makes it hard to work with weird frequencies especially as they ascend, which in turn leads to situations where you're forced to schedule 90 second headways with the expectation that the resulting congestion will normalize it to 110 or 120. Needless to say, this is bad for service, and maybe is something worth looking into.
  27. 7 points
    Personally, I hate it. I think it looks visually... messy. One navy or yellow stripe could look nice, but both is too much. It looks tacky to me. Stainless steel looks sleeker to my eye. It's even worse on the inside. All the blue and bright yellow on the inside of the public R211 mock-up gave me a headache. I'd much prefer white and stainless; it looks far cleaner, brighter, and more relaxing. Also, stainless doesn't need to be repainted every few years. I suspect these stripes are going to look like garbage 10 years in. MTA will probably realize that paint is more trouble than its's worth and go back to stainless, like SEPTA did recently with its BSL (orange line subway) cars.
  28. 7 points
    Maybe he's a former B/O that's grown so used to Vision Zero™ he thought it applied to the subway as well.
  29. 7 points
    Considering all the other crap that makes it onto the subway, this one's relatively tame. At least he's somewhat considerate. Free oxygen for when the train's emergency brakes go off.
  30. 7 points
    Yes, the totally needs to meander over to Reads Lane just to serve a grand total of one person. There are useful proposals, but that's definitely not one of them.
  31. 7 points
    There are some misconceptions about the relationship between speed and capacity that I’d like to clear up. First of all, what happens between stations isn’t nearly as important as what happens immediately around stations. Think about it like this: you have 2 trains running 2 minutes apart on some track. Train one stops at a station and dwells for 45 seconds — now trains 1 and 2 are at most 1:15 apart. What determines how long it will be until train 2 gets in the station (and thus your headway) is how fast train 1 can exit the station, how fast train 2 can enter the station, and how long the signal system’s enforced separation between them is. In essence, the signal system around stations generally has the most impact on operational performance. (Of course, merge/terminal capacity play a big role too, but station limits are most relevant to this conversation) This isn’t of course to say that interstations are unimportant. When you’re dealing with a conga line or some other irregular operational situation, you want a signal system capable of moving things along well. But for normal operations, unless your interstation signals are incapable of handling 2 min train separations (which is extremely rare) you’re fine. This brings me to my next point: slow speeds don’t *necessarily* mean less capacity. Signal systems are designed to simply enforce adequate train separation so that a train traveling at maximum area speed can stop. Thus if a signal system is designed around some enforced slow speed, train separation in the area will be less, which basically preserves your capacity. Where speed issues arise is if enforced slow speeds are retrofitted onto signal systems that were designed for higher speeds. Then you lose capacity. Bringing this back to the Williamsburg Bridge, the capacity issue isn’t so much the timers on the bridge — the signals are spaced per the timer limits — it’s the signal design at the ends of it. Trains are held too far back from the stations given the ridiculously slow speeds entering Marcy and Essex (10mph to both). Fixing that probably means resignalling or changing those stations’ configurations, but it’d definitely be worth it.
  32. 7 points
    @whz1995 The WillyB has been underutilized for years due to speed restrictions as we have mentioned, so seeing bikers win is little surprising at this point, and the side effect of years of operational inefficiency. *Additionally, this discussion on the train and WillyB should probably be moved to the random thoughts or proposals thread. This thread is for R179 developments when it gets back on topic.
  33. 7 points
    Somebody sell me on running the M14 to Chelsea Piers, because I don't see the point.... As far as this current discussion on here goes, running the M12 southward won't help that route & I'm not getting why there are as many people that suggest this.... BPC by itself isn't a ridership gen' & those patrons I don't see patronizing (extended) M12's any more, or near as much as they do the M20 (which isn't exactly saying much... lol)..... At minimum, the thing (M12) needs to be taken off 12th & put on 10th instead.... There shouldn't have been a first one.
  34. 7 points
    Because all the time gained is lost waiting at 42nd or 34th.
  35. 6 points
    again, i ask, why isn't KCC being brought to task to provide for their student base? i don't agree with adding an additional ridership pocket to the 44 sbs when it already has "issues" southbound from Roebling to fulton, etc. having 44's (be it short turn avenue X or U trips) sent to the college during their school hours does no good for the entire corridor. Flatbush Depot was very intuitive in my opinion by having wildcat artic runs from the college to sheepshead bay station, utilizing extra list operators who weren't assigned runs during those hours, which made it "easier" so to speak for the 49's who have to run the full line to maintain mediocrity (and that's being polite) all I'm saying is before we overcompensate KCC by pulling resources from the B44SBS in any fashion, let CUNY pay their way. by the way, the purpose of the the avenue x/U short turns is to maintain headway on Nostrand, rogers & bedford... I'd love to have a run where I'm getting slammed all the way up to the bridge from sheepshead, because i have no headway and no short turn leader due to a avenue x/U trip being sent into the college, then it can't come out on time because those students are holding the doors, trying to let their friends on the bus, tying up that run that used to be my safety net. i experienced that crap on the 49 incessantly, and the 44 already deals with the same problems from hudde jhs, sheepshead bay high school, midwood & madison... so let's add KCC to the mix, why don't we?
  36. 6 points
    Just wait until you see the front bonnet and the destination signs It's anything but a R160 look-alike
  37. 6 points
    What in hell are you talking about? West Farms never rushed to retire the OG CNG's, THEY HAD TO because CNG Buses have tanks that expire. As any depot with a shortage West Farms needed buses to fill in that gap, and the best choice was to send the newer XD40's up to West Farms in order to fill in the shortage gap, and why the hell do you want send Next Gens to a mostly NFI Depot, this makes no sense at all, especially when they house in CNG Buses for Christ sake. This is not about making everyone ride the new buses, its about sending buses where there is a need, not a plea. Most people fail to realize that CNG Buses actually have to be decommissioned by its expiration date, you and a couple of others in here with the same ideology you have always make the mistake of stating things without doing research, because its much easier to say things out of the blue. You people need to research, Google up information about CNG Tanks, search up CNG Buses and their service history in other agencies. Assumptions cannot be made, and is such an irresponsible decision making method in a Transit Agency. Buses don't have to be sequential, its not the end of the world, like its the same damn bus with different numbers, there is no need to have an OCD Breakdown and getting horny over the assignments you feel these buses should have. The only department that knows best is the Department of Buses, they are the one's who make responsible decisions, and know what has to be done.
  38. 6 points
    Topic - B103 1. Why is this route so indirect going a very long And bendy route 2. Why is there only limited and no local service, was it always like this ? 3. Why is this line one of the highest frequency lines in Brooklyn? Why wasn’t it ever considered to be come an articulated route ? 4. Is this line ever going to to considered for select bus service? 5. Why is the placement of stops so weird for not stopping in front the Q station at cortelyou rd 6. Why is the 103 just so weird
  39. 6 points
    Which is kind of sad to me, honestly..... Before BusTime was a thing, it was a type of accomplishment to find a brand new bus out of the blue without the assist of trackers and such. It was a good feeling to be able to do that. Nowadays, fans rely on trackers waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much, which is both lazy and sad in my opinion. Folks can make up the excuse of "omg I don't wanna stay out there all day" or similar types of excuses, but the fact is, trackers kinda killed fanning in my opinion. The spontaneity of it all is gone.
  40. 6 points
    HTT has (***theoretically***) been abolished, which is good. Generally, while it’s important to keep in mind that there are reasons for ops to go slow (GTs, weird schedules, toxic disciplinary culture, etc) it’s also important to recognize the impact speed has on service. An single op (or CR) on the or who is moving too cautiously can throw an entire rush hour through cascading congestion; a slow crew at any time of day can cause gappy service and kill merges, and these are things that we have to be cognizant of. We shouldn’t encourage risky practices or complain about legitimate slowing and we should recognize that most variability is a function of the ridiculously punitive managerial culture in NYCT, but we also should remember that there are very real operational consequences to be had in low speeds/long dwells. This has sadly become one of the driving pieces of logic behind CBTC — management does not trust the people of RTO to operate a consistent rush hour railroad at any respectable throughput.
  41. 6 points
    I try not to be too anal about this, but I do ask that we all do try to keep the topic related to the subject at hand, which is the 179s' ongoing delivery and placement into service. CBTC installation may be tangentially related here due to the potential for car placement, we do have two dedicated threads for CBTC signaling, both of which are stickied to the main subway page. Please use them for discussions on the signal upgrades and leave this thread for its intended purpose.
  42. 6 points
    Get out of your New York City bubble and you'll realize that this is totally wrong. Lets look at the Victoria Line in London... That's right: 36tph at peaks, 26tph middays, 26-30 tph on Saturday and 20-26 tph on Sunday. The doesn't even run that frequently. https://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html#services And before you say "but that line is completely isolated" lets look at the subsurface network... 24 tph in the core off peak and 12 tph pretty much everywhere else even with 8 merges... The only thing preventing the MTA from operating frequent off peak service is the MTA being stubborn.
  43. 6 points
    Are you out of your mind?! "faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them" Not having the at 4th Avenue and Carroll Street is a HUGE inconvenience and I shouldn't even have to explain why this is a terrible idea but here we are...
  44. 6 points
    -You gotta love a guy who cites service levels in the 1980s to prove that we don't need as much off-peak service. Let's just say that I suggest you do some reading on the system's history. Generally though, serving the off peak is in some ways more important than the peak. The off peak has actually contributed over 100% of ridership growth over the past three or so decades, and it's during that time period that transit faces the stiffest competition from cars. So yeah, we shouldn't run trains every 5 to 12 mins, we should run all of them every 5-6. To the point of cost: cost scales largely with crews (so whether a train is less than or greater than 300') not so much with consist length within those ranges. Even still, the marginal cost of adding new service -- especially after you account for marginal ridership increases, which the MTA does not do today -- is actually quite low. To give some perspective, the entire Canarsie subway service plan was to cost a net of 27 million or so. So yeah, this'll cost some money, but it isn't like the MTA can't find 30-50 mil in its 16 billion dollar ops budget... -I'd suggest you look at real world travel patterns before making claims about rider behavior. I'm sure some people do what you say, but if you look at LEHD data, the top ten work destination zip codes for private sector workers in SE Queens are: ...which basically means that priority 1 for SE Queens should be Midtown/LIC. Now, we should absolutely be sensitive to non-plurality commuters, but those commutes should be the realm of transfers, not purpose-built expansions. to , to or to some future RX gets you a lot of Brooklyn, Central Queens and Lower Manhattan with ease, while to various buses gets you most of the rest of Queens. Just a quick aside: my inner pedant compels me to provide you with some links where you can actually analyze these things for yourself. I'd try here: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ (be careful of data on Downtown Brooklyn; it seems DOE reported all their jobs in one place) and here: http://data5.ctpp.transportation.org/ctpp1216/ This latter program is a LOT harder to use (take the time to watch a tutorial before you attempt) but is extremely powerful, in that it can give you granular modeshares and the like. -Rockaways: so, what you're saying is that we should forgo making a 10 million dollar improvement so we can make a five billion dollar one? There are arguments to be made for the RBB, but this ain't it. -I once again love the concern for non-conventional commutes, but to plan subway extensions around the 55 people that commute between Rosedale and Bensonhurst daily seems...odd. Yeah, we should allow for that sort of thing, but not at the expense of the plurality flow -- especially not when something like the RX could do a better job facilitating that sort of trip than some jury-rigged solution with the (the , btw, does not connect with any line that goes to Bensonhurst until W4 St -- just some food for thought). to Rosedale follows an existing corridor and has the benefit of innately hitting a big work destination for Rosedale residents (Jamaica). This seems like a no brainer to me. -Manhattan needs capacity. Variety is great, but let's return to cabbage: would you rather have 8 types of shitty cabbage or 2 or 3 types of really good cabbage? This, of course, is to say that modal diversity does not change the basic equation of transit quality, one which, in Manhattan, is largely driven by our (in)ability to get people to the core. So sure, LRT on some crosstown corridors would be great, but to propose that in the place of subway expansions whose reach and potential benefit is magnitudes larger than LRT misses the whole point of planning.
  45. 6 points
    Those 2003 D60HF's lasted 16 years in hard service - that is a tremendous accomplishment for an articulated bus. Many transit agencies struggle to get the mandated 12 years out of an artic. Kudos to the TA mechanics.
  46. 6 points
    Not even close, when I do update the bus roster it takes me almost 2 hours. Because I go through each Depot double checking stuff that's retired, various movements, double and triple checking various information aside from physically typing out the wiki.
  47. 6 points
    I had a 45mins to kill this morning so I dug up some ancient signalling diagrams (1965) that @RailRunRob shared with me to delve deeper into the issue of historical capacity at Marcy/Essex. The math here will, by its nature, miss some nuances of train operation, acceleration profiles and the like, but should give a rough outline of capacity. If you see any significant errors, please let me know. Let's start with Marcy. If you need a primer on how to read these diagrams, go here. This is the relevant portion of the diagram for Marcy: Digging in. A train occupying the platform at Marcy would have let a following train creep up on it as far as signal J1-150 if its last car was at or behind J1-155, or J1-153 if its last car was forwards of signal J1-155. That means that there would have been either 1000 +/- 100 or 700 +/- 100 feet (+/- 100 as each signal position is rounded to the nearest hundred feet, giving each one an error of +/- 50, which is multiplied by two when dealing with two positions) between the front of the following train and signal J1-160, which we are approximating as our stopping position for the purposes of this exercise. Leaving Marcy, let's assume everyone goes local. Per this RFW video (train acceleration is hard to estimate beyond the first few mph, as the acceleration curve becomes really a curve), the time it takes to vacate the platform is approximately 20 seconds (I arrived at that by taking the time from the platform to when we passed signal J3-165 on the express track, and then rounded up from 19 to 20). Almost as soon as a train starts moving, a train at J1-150 would be able to move up to J1-153, with 20 seconds being sufficient time to cover that distance. As such, we're gonna just consider the time from J1-153 to the platform. After 20 seconds, J1-153 would clear to yellow, and a train, moving per the six MPH limit shown in the diagram, would take 79.5 +/- 11.4 seconds to arrive at the stopping point at the platform. In the best case distance, 20 + 68.1 = 88.1 seconds have elapsed since the leading train left, and in the worst, 20 + 90.1 = 110.9 seconds. Dwell time is the final variable here. At 30 seconds, the best case distance gives us a minimum cycle time of 118.1 seconds (or 30.4tph) and in the worst, a time of 140.9 seconds for 25.6 tph. It seems, given the statistics available, that distances were probably closer to the best case situation than the worst case, and that it's possible that ops took the curve at more than 6mph (the latter change would have a real impact -- moving at an average of 10 rather than 6 means the travel time becomes 47.6 +/- 6.4 sec). Contrast to today, when the equivalent of J1-150 (J1-149) has a control line long enough that it takes about 18 seconds for it to clear to yellow after a train starts moving out of Marcy. This is key. That length of separation in a slow speed area is one of the more significant places where capacity is lost on the WillyB. It's worth looking at the other direction for a second or two (I'm running short on time now -- if anything here/below bears more analysis, do let me know). A train in Marcy would hold a following train at J2-165, or about 500' back from the platform. 165 would clear to yellow as the leading train passed 154, which it would do (per the 6mph limit) 61s after beginning to move. Given that all signals between 165 and the platform's stopping point had control lines that did not extend beyond the platform, this would be the only time point of importance. So, when a leader passed 154, a train at 165 could accelerate at 2.5mphps (=3.7 ft/sec^2) to, say, 25mph (=36.7 ft/sec^2), decelerate at 2.5mphps, and arrive at the platform about 40 seconds later (1100 foot distance +/- 100, combined accel./decel. time of 20s, average speed in those intervals of about 18.35 ft/sec, distance covered in accel/decel of 367ft, remaining distance of 733 ft covered in 19.9 seconds @ 36.7ft/s). This means a total movement cycle time of 101 seconds. Add a 30 sec dwell, and we're at 131 seconds for 27.4tph. Superficially, this would seem the problem area; it would not surprise me if that was true back in the 1960s. But unlike in 1965, the entrance to Marcy going west seems to have ST aspects on its signals (those box-shaped hoods below the three lights on automatics, or between the three sets of three on the homes) which suggests to me that a following train could close better on its leader today. If someone can speak to the presence of ST in the area, or provide a video of two trains following at close distance through the area, I'd be very appreciative. Now Essex: The signal system here is insane. A train could pull up to J2-70 provided the leading train's last car was clear of J2-69. When a leader left the station, a follower could be a third of the way in. Given that the entrance speed here is 15, not 10, and that the signal system allows for truly close following, I don't even see the need to bore y'all with a further analysis of historical capabilities. Today, there are fewer signals (and thus following distance is probably longer), but given that I can't find an RFW where one train follows the next at close distance into Essex, I can't put my finger on an exact figure. It suffices to say that, given they've preserved the 15mph entrance speed, it's still somewhat capable of good capacity, provided controlled dwell times and good ST use.
  48. 6 points
    Looks like Christmas came early for Staten Island Politicians.
  49. 6 points
    Citi Field is in the middle of nowhere. Extending a bunch of buses to the middle of nowhere is not going to make it somewhere. You can drive from Flushing to LGA in less than five minutes even with traffic. Why the hell would anyone take the bus to the AirTrain for that trip?
  50. 6 points
    From Thursday: 2018 New Flyer "Xcelsior" XD60 6054 on the Q49 at 35 Avenue & 76 Street by BM5 Photos 2019, on Flickr 2018 New Flyer "Xcelsior" XD60 6054 on the Q49 at 35 Avenue & 77 Street by BM5 Photos 2019, on Flickr Enjoy!
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

  • Create New...

Important Information

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