AndrewJC

Not sure but maybe the cause for the installation of the timers being there could be be to prevent station platform overruns if its straight GT shots otherwise. I mean not 100% sure. My guess is as good as anyone else's here, but that probably may be a reason.

When new GT's are added into an old signal system, they are correcting safety deficiencies in the signal design. They have nothing to do with station overruns (which are seriously inconvenient but not actually unsafe). Signal engineers worry about ensuring that trains stay safely separated and that interlockings are safe, not about station stops.

The problem with this *gap* is that (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the MTA is mandated by City Council to maintain a minimum amount of service according to service guidelines. If the MTA thought that WPR was above guideline load (and turnstile count would definitely give some indication for this), then it would probably increase 2 service, because it is not possible for the MTA to rob Peter (Dyre) to pay Paul (WPR).

 

What you should be concerned about is not whether your train car is full; it's whether or not the entire train is above guideline. If this is just an issue of people mashing into certain cars because that's where the exits and entries are, then big whoop: that happens on nearly every train line in every part of the city. The MTA calculates by average car load, not peak car load, and that's what you've got to worried about.

You asked for corrections?

The service guidelines were devised by the NYCTA in the 1980's (with a few revisions since) and approved by the MTA Board. The City Council never had anything to do with it.

And they are on no way binding on NYCT or the MTA - they are merely guidelines, to be applied where feasible.

There are headway guidelines, which (for the subway) call for at least 6 tph on each line during the day on weekdays and Saturdays (evenings, nights, and Sundays have less generous guidelines). And there are loading guidelines, which outside of rush hours call for loads not exceeding 125% of a seated load - during rush hours, the maximum load depends on the headway but is never more than 110 on the A Division and 145 or 175 on the B Division (depending on car length).

Turnstile count cannot be used to determine how many people are on each train at its peak load point. The only reliable way to check loads is to actually count (or estimate) the load on each train as it leaves the peak load point.

And these loads are averaged over not only each car on a train but on each train over an entire hour (or half-hour?). So a single train that's overloaded because it happens to have been delayed doesn't necessarily indicate a guideline violation as long as trains aren't overloaded on average.

I was saying only during the summer months between memorial day and labor day on the shuttle,

Yes, I know what you were saying. Weekday summer ridership does not generally require more than the usual 300 foot OPTO shuttle trains. How would you justify the use of the extra cars and conductors? Car assignments are not determined according to the desires of railfans.

You mean PS 247, then yes...3005 been there for ages

Its also the NYCT learning center

Its a safety issue.

But I think it would have been smart to run R32's on the shuttle during the summer months instead of R46's, its only 4 stops and its outside

Even on weekdays, when a 300 foot OPTO train is quite adequate? What was wrong with moving the R32's to the J?

Since the Rockaway S is a full 600' for the beach crowds, why not put the R32s there? they need a c/r anyway and the line is very short. That said, I'm fine with the swap with the J. It makes more sense as the majority of the line is above ground and that's good for the R32s. Not to mention at least the view is better on the J than mostly tunnels with the A, till it gets to Queens.

The Rock Park shuttle runs short trains on weekdays year-round - only on weekends do long trains typically run in the summer. And weekdays are when fleet size is a constraint.

Car assignments are not determined based on the view.

Should be even easier, since it's just straight down Queens Blvd and Broadway for the buses.

It would require significantly more buses, since there's no alternative rail route for through riders aside from the LIRR. For shutdowns south of Roosevelt, through riders can use the 7 and there only needs to be enough bus service to handle the traffic to and from the intermediate stops.

What I'm wondering then is where the rumors start with this provision of overengineering on Grand? I always questioned the validity of it in itself. Maybe it was planned but not so sure if it was actually built for 100% sure.

Grand Street was intended to be potentially converted in the future to a four-track station. But it wasn't built as one. There are no tracks or trackways behind the walls.

This keeps being brought up because Wikipedia states that the current wall at Grand is a false wall. NYCSubway is not too sure about it, and unlike Lex-63rd (which I also used on a daily basis), there is no indication that Grand St has a false wall. In any case, ADA retrofit would be an issue (and should Phase IV be built, they should overhaul the Grand St complex and build a Grand/Bowery exit; as of right now, only one out of the four or five exits is heavily used, but it's used to the point where it might actually be dangerous if it gets more crowded)

63rd/Lex was built as a four-track station from day one. A wall blocked off the pair of tracks that led nowhere, but the tracks were there from the start.

Grand Street, on the other hand, was never anything more than a two-track station.

I'm not surprised. That's kind of ridiculous to have something like that on Thanksgiving proper. Maybe for Black Friday, but not on the actual holiday. Hopefully it doesn't pop up again at the last minute like that Q suspension last week.

Service is going to suck for people between Broadway–Lafayette Lafayette and Jay Street during late nights from December 2 to 6… The runs with the from West 4 Street to Jay Street–Metrotech, but the Manhattan Shuttle only runs between Broadway–Lafayette Street and East Broadway necessitating 2 transfers (involving the shuttle, , and ) in either direction.

Here's an interesting service change (starts the weekend of 12/14):  Additional service operates between World Trade Center and Van Wyck Blvd Weekends, 9 AM to 7 PM, Sat, until Dec 21                   11 AM to 6 PM, Sun, until Dec 22 Alternate  trains run to/from the 179 St  Station.  I wonder if service will be cut on the F-line for some reason that would require the E to be doubled like this.

Agreed. They could have put the red LEDs elsewhere. They just have to be showing anyhow.

No they don't. The only reason for the red LED's is that, when the R142's were designed in the 90's, red was the only practical and affordable color, and that aspect of the car hasn't been redesigned since.

I'm hoping that the R211's have large screens displaying the proper route symbols, as they appear on the R46-R68 fleets but without the need for manual rolling.

As a daily reader, I've caught the R62A a couple times. Personally, I don't mind it that much. The A/C is fine, they're extremely clean and if you ask me, they're just as reliable as the R142As. The only thing I really ask the to do is to replace the lights... compared to the R142A, the R62A lights are extremely dim.

Am I the only one who finds the R142A (etc.) lighting too bright? It's a subway car, not an operating room.

On the contrary, the G is pretty reputable compared to other lines. It is relatively infrequent, however.

Reputable? Did I really say that?

Make that reliable.

The announcements would only be going Queens bound from TS to QBP similar to how the announcements are only played when the 6 runs from Manhattan to The Bronx to further differentiate between the local and express train. When going to Manhattan, the announcements would be the same as they are now "This is a Manhattan bound 7 local/express train blah blah"

Why not simply announce a Flushing-bound 7 express train at every stop from Times Square to Queensboro Plaza?

Why is Broad Street not served on the weekends?

MTA should bring back the service pattern box at the bottom of the maps."Should I wait for a or not. Is the going local...hmmmm Is 11:01 late night..."

is OTP that bad on the G? That would be a sad situation if it were true.

On the contrary, the G is pretty reputable compared to other lines. It is relatively infrequent, however.

Just a quick question/suggestion,

I noted that during rush hours, the announcements in Manhattan say "This is a Queens bound 7 train, the next stop is ..."

wouldn't it benefit riders more if the announcements were similar to the 6 line during rush hours?

E.G. "This is a Flushing-Main Street bound 7 train making express stops in Queens, the next stop is Vernon Boulevard- Jackson Avenue" 

That's needlessly verbose, since there are no local stops in Manhattan. The announcement should simply include the word "local" or "express" from start to finish (or at least until it's no longer relevant - no need to make the distinction Manhattan-bound after Queensboro Plaza).

Agreed, but couldn't something similar have been done atleast for the itself? It doesn't share tracks with the other Irt lines except for late nights or the for that matter.

Also to throw this in, isn't almost every signal outside of the A div and the aging? Maybe its based on the demand first.

In the grand scheme of things, what is three to five years on a timeline of a century?

With a capacity for 2400 people per train, at the Q's current frequency of 7tph, that is 16800 people per hour. Since the Q will no longer be constrained by the 60th St tubes, its biggest constraint will be shared track with the N (7 TPH). With B-Division signalling capacity topping out at 30 TPH, there is scope to significantly increase capacity once the Q is taken out of 60th St. Assuming a peak-hour capacity of 25 TPH (similar to what runs on the Lex Express today, with the complexities of the flat junction at Nostrand), the Q has the potential for 18 TPH capacity; 43200 people per hour. An additional 43200 people per hour on the East Side would be the biggest capacity improvement seen in a long time. In addition, a new line has other benefits; it decreases platform overcrowding on the Lex, increases property values and rents in the surrounding areas, and brings ADA accessibility to the East Side. And this is just phase 1. CBTC on the does none of this.

I think the MTA should expand the R188 order for the mainline IRT, 7937-8037 would be the numbers 100 cars is good enough these would be in 5 car sets 8038-8046 would be in 3 car sets, 8047-60 would be in 4 car sets for the shuttle only, I would displace most of the R62A singles to the C division, the R62A's from the shuttle could be converted to rail adhesion cars for the dyre line replacing those RedbirdsAll these extra R188's would be CBTC ready and the shutlle could be CBTC/ATO in no time this would save the MTA alot of money

Just a reminder, for anyone who couldn't catch the train today, you'll have plenty more chances over the coming decades.

(I point this out only because, from the posts here, it almost appears that this train is only running today.)

Apparently by rollovermyhead's reaction. Again yes you know your stuff to a tee, but it's better to teach your knowledge not be condescending or throw words into people's mouths. 

 

Be nice to the kids now....

I'm not trying to be condescending. (I know how to be condescending when I want to be condescending!) I have nothing against RollOverMyHead. I'm just clarifying my understanding of the situation.

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't have gotten CBTC. I'm just saying that the will get delayed more due to the reasons mention in the first sentence of my previous post. But now that Lance has pointed out that there will be storage tracks south of 34th and that Flushing is still a bit more flexible due to its three-track layout, I now realized that I was wrong. Am I clear enough now?

I don't think that has anything to do with it. If a train arrives at the terminal interlocking while all tracks are still occupied, it has to wait until one of the trains leaves the terminal. If trains are now typically approaching the terminal a minute or two early, because CBTC allows them to run faster, there won't be a track available, and they're going to have to wait.

The issue here isn't one of capacity (which tail tracks definitely helps) but rather one of running times. The solution is to correct the schedule to reflect the new running time.

You have alot of knowledge and workable mathematical skill on statistics indeed where it pertains to transit, it is supurb. But what you need to understand is how to educate younger ones on the facts with transit not scold them for certain gaps in the understanding of it. 

Did I scold someone?

I'm somewhat suprised about the entire route and the R188s. I mean once this whole project is finish, expect more delays near its terminals especially during rush hour with more trains being added to this line. Just like the . CBTC only increases capacity a bit anyway. Take a good look at the two-tracked 34th Street (future south terminal) and you'll see my point.

The reason there are delays approaching the terminals on the L is that CBTC speeds up the trains, but the schedules are still based on the pre-CBTC running times.

The Flushing line is in need of a new signal system. Are you suggesting that it should have gotten a brand new wayside signal system rather than CBTC?

I think he means the QBP-TS outages...

There are going to be plenty more after this round.

 

Preliminary structural repair work for a pending Essex Street overhaul is in the works. Nothing though on the Bowery at the moment. Probably because it is low priority due to low ridership but that's just my take on it.

Essex/Delancey was fully rehabbed about ten years ago.

Nice shot of the Broadway Ferry terminal.

Merge the M101 and M103 bus routes. They are nothing more than extensions of each other and it makes more sense for them to be one route. It would retain the M101 label under this proposal.

Until 1995, the M101 and M102 ran to City Hall (with some buses short-turning at Cooper Union, as I recall), and there was no M103. In 1995, the southern end of both routes was split off to create the M103.