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.

TheSubwayStation

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,549
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheSubwayStation

  1. You calling him a foamer? Anyway, I think what needs to be remembered is that while just about every rider prefers new trains, there are other restrictions in the NYC subway system as to what equipment can run where besides what people want. The makes sense for CBTC, as stated many times, because it's an isolated, short, line with aging signals that are going to need replacing anyway. The arguments over whether the R62As are good enough for the or not are beside the point in my opinion.
  2. 1. Why don't they just run the and to York St and High St? 2. Why don't they run the and to 34 St?
  3. It's also worth mentioning that the Lex is the busiest subway line in NYC, so it makes sense to get it up and running early.
  4. I completely agree with this statement. I don't see what's so special about the Upper East Side. I'll bet that the richest people who live there don't even ride the subway right now. That's just a guess. I think that if you pulled the NTTs from just about any line, somebody would be upset. Yes, it's true that wealthier people generally have higher expectations, but I'm just saying that the line complainers aren't necessarily any richer than those elsewhere.
  5. Okay; I brought up this topic under the assumption that they weren't, in some cases (at least before a multitude of grade timers were installed).
  6. I don't think you understand what I'm talking about. I know that grade time doesn't have anything to do with the train ahead, but my point is that it's often used to slow down trains to reduce stopping distances (and thus prevent rear-end collisions). My solution uses station time to allow the control length to be extended without keeping trains from closing in on each other. This would hopefully reduce the need for grade timers because trains would only be able to get closer to each other at a safe speed. Essentially, this is a proposal to expand increased control lengths + station time to more parts of the system to reduce the need for grade time.
  7. But you'd create a whole bunch of other problems (e.g. noise, structural maintenance, other bad weather such as snow).
  8. When it was determined that the blocks of track (distances between signals) in some cases were not long enough to allow trains to stop before a rear end collision would happen, there were basically two solutions enacted to fix the problem: 1. lengthen the blocks, or re-program the signals to keep a two-block distance between trains instead of a one-block distance. 2. add grade timers. The problem is that the first solution reduces capacity by forcing trains to run farther apart, and the second solution slows down the trains and as a result, slightly reduces capacity too. I've been thinking of a new solution that would, if I'm correct, eliminate both problems while preventing crashes. I would double the control length of the signals (there would be two full blocks of red signals behind each train instead of one) but use station time to allow trains to pass the first red signal at a safe speed. Thus, trains would only have to slow down if they approached the train ahead of them, unlike with grade time, which forces them to slow down unconditionally. (And, unlike if the control length was doubled, trains would still be able to close in on the train ahead of them, they'd just have to do so at a safe speed.) This diagram hopefully makes the solutions clearer: Existing setup (risk of collision): TRAIN BEHIND-----------GREEN-----------YELLOW-----------RED-----------RED-TRAIN AHEAD Example of grade time solution (trains unconditionally slow down): TRAIN BEHIND-----------GT35-------------GT35---------------RED-----------RED-TRAIN AHEAD Example of doubling the control length: TRAIN BEHIND-----------YELLOW----------RED---------------RED-----------RED-TRAIN AHEAD Example of my station time solution: TRAIN BEHIND-----------YELLOW----------ST25--------------RED-----------RED-TRAIN AHEAD I'm not a signal expert, so I don't know for sure whether my solution would be a good one. I also don't know if it's already been implemented in certain places in the system. What do you guys think of it? (By the way, if my post was confusing to anyone, I'll be happy to try to explain it more clearly.)
  9. I'm going to assume that this takes place after the winds have calmed down, so the bridges are usable: 241 St - South Ferry, local suspended Flatbush Av - Atlantic Av New Lots Av - Atlantic Av Woodlawn - Bowling Green (local) Woodlawn - Bowling Green (local) Flushing - Hunters Pt Av suspended Coney Island - Lexington Av/59 St, local in Brooklyn 95 St - Lexington Av/59 St, via Bridge runs local Coney Island - York St (customers should transfer to the at 4 Av 2 Av - 57 St Myrtle Av - Metropolitan Av shuttle Rockaways - High St, local WTC - 207 St, local suspended Jamaica Ctr - Queens Plaza, local (uses tracks to relay) Church Av - Greenpoint Av Rockaway Pkwy - Bedford Av Jamaica Ctr - Marcy Av suspended
  10. I did say it, but I might be wrong. There are other people on this forum who know better. I am pretty sure, though, that the is almost as long as the , and it gets more crowded. I'm aware that this doesn't necessarily mean that the is more demanding, as I previously said.
  11. The issue isn't the number of cars available, but the fact that a train every 5 minutes off-peak would probably be too much for the .
  12. Am I one of the only people on here who likes the unique howling sound that the 142s make?
  13. R142, R142A, R62/A, R68/A I like them all, though. These are just my favorites; I have no cars that I have something against.
  14. The problem is that there isn't capacity for the , , , , , , and running on the 6 Avenue Local tracks. I suppose that using 34 St-Penn Station to turn and trains, 34 St-Herald Sq to turn and trains would be a good proposal.
  15. NEXT: long-term construction makes the 8 Avenue Express tracks unusable between 59 St and Canal St. Try to keep TPH through the area as high as possible to avoid overcrowding.
  16. terminates at 36 St or runs local via the to Bay Ridge-95 St terminates at Canal St, 36 St or runs local via the to Bay Ridge-95 St select trains terminate at Whitehall St or Canal St, other trains run via the Manhattan Bridge terminates at Church Av terminates at 2 Av or 36 St I'm guessing that you might have meant Utica Av, not Nostrand Av for the , in which case they can just terminate at Utica. If not, here's what I'd do: terminates at Franklin Av some trains terminate at Bowling Green or Atlantic Av some trains terminate at Flatbush Av terminates at 2 Av or 34 St terminates at Rector St terminates at Euclid Av terminates at Myrtle Av With the 8 Av Line at 23 St and 14 St, I give up
  17. He probably doesn't know that the A and B divisions use different width cars.
  18. One could argue that if the MTA cared about the , they would run it between Bowling Green and 149 St-GC when there's construction in the Bronx rather than cutting it. Still, I don't see why it makes sense for the MTA to favor certain lines over others, although as we know, things don't always make sense in MTA land. There are certain cases when lines get treated badly by the MTA, but it's not because they have a bias against them. For example, the R32s have to go somewhere; the makes sense because it requires the right number of cars. It's not because the MTA just hates the . Another example is the ; the MTA actually doesn't have enough cars to make every line full-length; cutting the rather than another line to 4 cars makes sense because it's one of the only lines whose ridership can handle it. It's also important to note that just about every line can have instances of bad service in one way or another. Basically any subway line can become delayed at one point or another such that people might have have to wait 20+ minutes for a train; it's not specific to a particular line.
  19. Not to mention the confusion over which trains are going to stop and which aren't.
  20. There's a difference between bad service and wanting to cut service. In this case, as you probably are aware, the has really bad weekend service because of all of these Bronx IRT G.O.s. I see. I didn't read this post before I made the above comment. The thing is, though, with increasing ridership, the MTA at least claims that they want to increase service, not decrease it. You'd think that if the was on the table, it would've been considered during the 2010 cuts, when the MTA had even less money to spend.
  21. I really think that railfans, because they enjoy "roller coaster" express runs, get under the false assumption that an express train won't save you time unless it goes really fast. It's not the case; going 25 MPH (on the bridge) instead of 30-35 MPH (in the tunnel) doesn't make that huge of a difference. It's still much faster over the bridge.
  22. I think it's worth noting that there's a big difference between whether the express moves faster or whether waiting extra time for the express will save you time. BTW, countdown clocks could come in handy for this.
  23. I think the general point is not that the express runs are bad, but that people are too eager to wait extra time for an express. I really can't remember the last time that I've seen an express train (which left at the same time as the local) that actually went slower. Generally, if I see an express train across the platform, and I'm going to an express stop, I'll switch to the express. I think it's hard to go wrong with that, with a few exceptions (such as homeball alley).
  24. Really? When I downloaded it, all I saw were .exe files.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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