AndrewJC

Seems like a waste to staff that tower for just an hour or two each evening. Much simpler to just run the C express (and ignore the 50th St. issue) or to run the E express. Once headways reach 20 minutes, everything can run local.

So we have 7 minutes from the previous C to the incident train, then another 15 minutes (according to your report) until the D pulled in - already up to 22 minutes, more than twice the scheduled C headway. And the C on the express track was still a few minutes away. Seems like a bit of a gap to me. Presumably the dispatcher didn't know, when he decided to send the D local, that the incident train would be ready to proceed in a minute or two. At that moment, his top concern was to provide service to the 72nd, 81st, 86th, 96th, 103rd, 110th, and 116th, all of which had had a gap of more than twice the scheduled headway already. He did the right thing. It's happened, but not in a number of years. Here it is in 2001: http://talk.nycsubway.org/perl/read?subtalk=198281

And what was the gap on the local track ahead of that D?

But not in many years, as far as I know. Not only has CBTC not been awarded on QBL yet, the CBTC spec hasn't even been defined yet. The QBL work is to modernize three interlockings - a prerequisite for CBTC, but not CBTC itself. Flushing is where the actual CBTC work is taking place these days.

The C can't cross from local to express at 42nd.

Just FYI - High Street and Clark Street are nearby. If I had a problem on an A train at High and I needed to get to 34th, I'd walk over to Clark for the 2/3. (Of course, I don't know if you have an unlimited.) What about the crew shortage? I spent a few minutes scratching my head before figuring out what I think you meant by those numbers. The off-peak loading guideline allows for 125% (formerly 100%) of a seated load at the peak load point. First off, that's the loading guideline - 100% of it - not 125% of it! Second, I don't believe the D, under normal operations, typically carries as much as 125% of a seated load. Third, the peak load point is not in the Bronx. Fourth, any major GO scares away some fraction of the ridership - either they find other ways to get where they're going or they wait until the GO ends to make their trips. I'm making up these numbers to illustrate the point, but let's say the 4 and D leaving 161st northbound on a weekend typically both carry about 40 people per car (that's about a seated load on the 4 and a bit over half of a seated load on the D) . The 4, then, carries 40 x 10 x 7.5 = 3,000 people per hour, and the D carries 40 x 8 x 6 = 1,920 people per hour. If the full load of the D is diverted onto the 4 (i.e., there's no diversion to other lines or to other modes or to Monday), we're looking at an hourly load of 4,920, or 4,920 / (10 * 7.5) = 66 riders per car: about 131% of guideline, not 200% or 250%. Based on your description, there was a gap in local service of close to 30 minutes, when the regular local headway is 10 minutes. You're suggesting that one 480 foot train pick up a half hour's worth of local passengers, rather than having a 600 foot train go ahead to share the load? Why are you so eager to starve the local stops of the service they need? Wow indeed. In my opinion, the only thing the dispatcher did wrong here was wait 15 minutes before sending an express up the local.

Aside from the questions of the extension itself, I seriously question the idea of a park-and-ride in the first place - the opportunity cost is immense. We could build a subway extension with a vast parking lot at the terminal. It would be very attractive for Long Islanders who want to drive partway into Manhattan during rush hours, but it wouldn't be very useful locally, since any nearby residential and commercial development would require a long walk across a parking lot to reach the station. I'd much prefer instead to see a subway extension into a dense mixed-use residential/commercial area, to improve transit access without resorting to cars and so that the extension sees traffic outside rush hours.

FASTRACK is for short duration maintenance work. Anything large-scale that requires the track to be out of service for more than 7 consecutive hours (closer to 5 in practice) needs a longer shutdown. Agreed 100% about the announcements. But if the problem is congestion, then holding in stations just pushes the problem back.

Nonsense. There is no reason for the R62A's to be maintained at three shops (240th, Mosholu, and Pelham) when two would suffice The purpose of Flushing CBTC is to replace a very old signal system that needs to be replaced. It could have been replaced with a new wayside signal system, but how would the life-cycle costs, capacities, and running times have compared? Not favorably, I suspect.

"The authority said the changes were seasonal schedule adjustments because ridership is lighter during the summer, a spokeswoman said." It's no longer Summer 2011. (As far as I know, the summer-light-riding schedules weren't implemented in 2012 or 2013 - and even if they were, summer's over now. Summer-light-riding schedules, by the way, were routine on the subway through the 90's, and they're still in place on buses, so it's not like this is a foreign concept.)

Because the overwhelming majority of 1 riders are not students. What you propose would save a minute or so for a small number of lucky riders and make everybody else cram onto the next train. Who would board a northbound train at 238th? I've made that trip many, many times, and I've never found it painful. For a local, it's pretty brisk. Sometimes I get off for the express at 96th; sometimes I stay on and grab a seat as the masses get off. (I certainly prefer a reliable 25 minute trip over an express bus that's subject to the whims of the traffic gods!) Regardless of the track layout, express service would not make sense on this line, simply because the stations closer to 96th are much busier than the stations at the north end. While 231 is the busiest station north of 181, every single station between 181 and 103, aside from 125, is busier than 231. If there were an express, there'd be a tremendous rider imbalance, with locals much more crowded than expresses. Sorry to be the dissenter, but the 1 isn't overcrowded. It's crowded, and occasional trains are certainly overcrowded, but the line is not carrying more than 110 people per car, on average, during rush hours. Like on any other line, people tend to clump up by the doors even when there's plenty of room in the middle of the car, but that doesn't make it overcrowded. That said, ridership has been growing, so even if it isn't overcrowded yet... It's hard (virtually impossible) to find a seat on any line at the peak load point during rush hour. The MTA doesn't schedule for a seated load. Source? In the morning rush, the 1 runs 19 tph (ask Trip Planner for the schedule and count the number of trains between 7:50 and 8:49), and it's been that way for years. Middays, 10 tph. Weekends, 7.5 tph (reduced from 10 tph in 2010). The 6 runs 23 tph in the morning rush (again, ask Trip Planner), 15 tph middays, 7.5 tph weekends. In recent years, the 1 has never run more than 19 tph. South Ferry loop can handle 21 tph, and the "new" terminal 24 tph. The north terminal may be the greater constraint, although of course there are alternative north terminals like 137th. Your comment about loops depends on the geometry and on the signaling. If the loop is sharp enough that trains have to crawl through it, it can constrain capacity even without a station.

Regardless of what anyone says here, the overwhelming majority of riders simply don't care - it's a passing curiosity at best. Do you think West Siders traveling between Franklin and 135th let the 3 go to wait for the 2 so that they can get newer cars? Of course not - they take whichever comes first. I don't believe they were. I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the 30-day test. The purpose is for NYCT to verify that the train can operate for 30 consecutive days, in revenue service, without any serious malfunctions. If it can't, the manufacturer is on the hook to make whatever fixes are necessary, and then the 30-day clock starts again. The purpose is not for NYCT to try to figure out where the cars should run.

The J and the C are both 8 car trains. The total car requirements are exactly the same whether the C is 100% R32, 100% R160, or anything in between. In other words, I don't know if the R42's are going to stick around until the R179's or if they're going to be retired sooner, but it certainly doesn't depend on whether the C is running R160's. The flooding was worse and took longer to pump out than anywhere else. The longer salt water is in contact with electrical components, the more damage it does. Any particular reason you're restricting that to one line and to one car class? It's pretty dreadful being in a hot car, on any line and of any car class. I can't speak to this one in particular, but most of the recent timers have been installed to bring the signals into compliance with safety standards - that is, without the timer, there's a risk that a train that passes a red signal at max speed will hit the train ahead (or will come too close to comfort - I don't know what the safety margin is). I got an email alert on September 10 at 3:35 PM about the service change starting the following day. If you're not signed up for email alerts, perhaps you should sign up. J, M, and H often encounter similar GO's. To allow work to take place closer to Court Street than can take place when trains are terminating there, and to reduce costs and crew requirements.

The elevator exit at West 4th leads to the north side of West 3rd, just like the adjacent staircase. http://goo.gl/maps/18G37 From http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Subway_Signals:_Train_Stops#co:

No they didn't. The W used 10 trains. The Q went up by 5 trains. The N didn't change (the local running time wasn't enough to require any additional cars). Broadway runs basically fine, as far as I can see. It's a bit less congested than it was with the W. The W will be coming back when SAS opens. It certainly can't come back now - the R has taken over its south terminal pocket. I've waited up to 15-20 minutes for pretty much every line I've ridden. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a problem. Except at night, the R is scheduled more frequently than that. If the R has a reliability problem, then efforts should be made to solve the reliability problem. Throwing more trains at it won't solve anything. The R doesn't handle Queens, or Manhattan north of Canal, by itself - the M and N share the work. The Manhattan stations south of Canal are not particularly busy - even before the Montague tube shutdown, southbound R trains in the morning were mostly empty by the time they left Canal. The southern M was cut because ridership was very, very low, and there was more than ample room on the alternative routes to carry every M rider. Unless ridership grows substantially on the 4th Avenue or West End line, why bring it back in any form? They seemed pretty evenly split, from what I could tell. Aside from the Rock Park trains, there didn't seem to be much preference one way or the other. The F to Brooklyn is not overcrowded. Crowded, yes, but adding on 10 tph would have been overkill. The purpose of combining the two M's was to save money, since it's cheaper to run trains through than to have two nearby terminals. The connection has proved very popular among riders - that seems like pretty good news to me.

Every single platform, curved or straight, would have to be shaved back in order to accommodate B Division equipment, and any signal or other component which is not placed outside the clearance envelope of a B Division car would have to be relocated. Aside from the 7, which has its own areas of tight clearance, every IRT subway line uses some Contract 1 trackage.

If they were served only by the R, they'd be the four busiest stations served only by the R. As I said, the express only saves a minute or two, and it's not worth making tens of thousands of riders wait twice as long for a train so that you can save a minute or two.

There most certainly is! All four of the local stops between 34th and Canal are busier than any of the stations served only by the R. The Broadway express run only saves a minute or two - it's not worth making tens of thousands of riders wait twice as long for a train so that you can save a minute or two. Not true. Weekday ridership is greater than Saturday or Sunday ridership at all four local stations. At two of them, weekday ridership is even greater than total weekend (Saturday plus Sunday) ridership. The single crossover south (or west) of 75th is being converted to a diamond crossover. The modernization, in general, sets the stage for CBTC.

The term's been around since 1999! http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_SDaDjYFMVtx0KPGJnNiKoM

Virtually no Astoria residents care about the QM22. (One of their elected officials has been repeatedly pandering to his constituents by "demanding" a restoration of the QM22 - and, for that matter, of the W train - but that just shows how out-of-touch he is.) The annual operating cost of the QM22 was over $200,000. I'd rather see that money spent somewhere else, where it will benefit more than 62 people (closer to 31 people, since presumably most made round trips). Again, your assumptions are completely wrong. Total daily operating cost was $850, and the average fare paid was $4.17, not $5.00. The QM22 did not come close to breaking even - it covered 31% of its direct operating costs, or 17% of its total costs, from the farebox. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aha-LfXMlWNBdHd4QkhLRF92cURWNWdSbzNfSjJwWWc&hl=en#gid=1 And for those occasions, there's always paper! http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?32359 Could have been a reroute due to a problem at South Ferry. I once boarded a southbound 1 at Fulton - I don't know which branch it took in Brooklyn, since I got off at Atlantic. Somehow I don't think that this is how these decisions are made. (They rumble because they're exposed to a lot of fallen leaves yet the nearest wheel truing machine is at Coney Island.) Barely find a seat? During rush hours, the loading guideline for the Q train (R160's on a 6 minute headway) is 125 people per car. Outside of rush hours, the loading guideline is 53 people per car. There's no expectation that you'll get a seat when you ride the subway! The L uses 24 trains, not "literally thousands," and they are significantly more crowded than the Q at the peak load point.

That "slight modification" entails narrowing all of the platforms and removing a bunch of signals! Westchester is the name of a storage facility. There's no reason for a storage facility to care about cab arrangement. Pelham is the name of the maintenance shop. I suppose that a maintenance shop might care about cab arrangement, but it seems pretty unlikely. Neither storage facilities nor maintenance shops are independent entities that make independent decisions. They all belong to the New York City Transit Department of Subways, which makes decisions on a centralized basis. And the reason for this centralized decision is simple: so that all R62A five car sets assigned to the 6 are interchangeable and nondirectional. That is, take any two five car sets, facing either direction, and link them together, and the result is a 10 car train with a transverse cab for the T/O and (most important) for the C/R.

The QM22 carried 62 riders per day. Its impact on subway ridership was negligible. The discussion here was about midday GO's; the QM22 only ran rush hours. That's certainly not my experience. If I'm going somewhere served by both the A and C, I'll typically take the C if it comes first, and the A rarely passes me. Air conditioning is not a problem on the R32's outside the summer. There's no reason to run R32's anywhere but the C outside the summer. Until 207th or Pitkin is equipped to work with R160's, running R160's on the C is costly. That's a pretty significant issue. No. Watch? The issue isn't watching - the issue is making repairs and performing scheduled inspections. Why transfer all those cars back and forth unnecessarily?

Then your training manual was mistaken. http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=r2oqb8&s=5 (My post was also mistaken - I meant 8 new trains, not 88.)

I guess that makes me downright stupid. I don't like the NTT seats, the acceleration is jerky, and I find the loud, droning announcements irritating. I don't dislike them enough to wait for the next train, but if it's entirely up to me I'll take a SMEE any day. (Makes no difference to me what's new and what's old.)

Is Roosevelt Tower staffed at night?