TheSubwayStation

It's a mess over there so I might be missing something, but from what i see the only shares track with the and never the , however the merges with the to stop at DeKalb. It would cause small delays because of timing, but it's not impossible. And surely a few minutes of delays are better than forcing riders to make unnecessary transfers.

 

I don't see where the has to merge with the ...But anyway, you're right that the don't have to be on one track. I made a mistake...Still though, I think you'd have delays because the merges with the almost instantly after the merges away. It's not that far away from sharing a track.

The can run fine through the 60th Street tunnel, so they can run through the bridge.

 

There's something else there besides the : the . You'll see it on the track map.

This train was made for lines that run Express. So we will assign it to these lines:

8 Av Express

6 Av Express

6 Av Local

Nassau St Express

Broadway/2 Av Express

Nassau St Express

 

Because it goes 74 MPH . My prediction: Williamsburg Bridge crash revisited. But, you got your SPEED alright.

 

What's the catch?

 

Run over the bridge, and terminate all trains south of Canal at Whitehall.

 

The catch is that the rush hour can't all run on the bridge for a particular reason, which I think you'll be able to figure out from looking at the track map.

NEXT:

The Montague St tunnel under the river is unusable. I know what you guys would like do do, but there's a catch.

Agreed.

 

NOW FOAMERS GET OUTCHA CAMERAS

 

Re-routed Via Mountage, Broadway Express, 63rd St, QBL Express to Jamacia-179th St

Re-Routed via CPW Local, and depending on the time, Concourse.

Re-Routed Via Mountage

Sorry, but I'm not in the mood for this anymore. I know it was funny before, but I think we've all gotten tired of "fowming".

 

BTW, it's "Montague" not "Mountage"...Interesting scrambling of the same letters .

B trains can't be cut to only one borough then? Well then expect delays on because there's no other logical way.

 

No, you can run them on the Broadway Line, and change the signs to at the terminals if need be. I guess maybe the most logical thing would just be to run the between the Bronx and 2 Av, and lay up the trains in Brooklyn along the express tracks.

Manhattan bound runs between Coney Island and 59th St (Brooklyn) via the , between 59th St and Dekalb via the and then regular route over the bridge. Any Manhattan bound trains running on Brighton terminate at Prospect Park

 

This is an unnecessary reroute.

NEXT: the Manhattan bound track connecting the Brighton Line to the Manhattan Bridge between Atlantic Av and DeKalb Av is unusable. You have to account for all trains, and you can't cut the to one borough only.

 

***Note: I'm not going to pay attention to the 3 scenarios/24 hours rule, as worrying about something like that completely ruins the fun of posting scenarios. I've never posted any scenarios just to boost my post count.***

Seriously? As Gorgor said, no one should care about their post count. Just no. If you have a good scenario, feel free to post as many as you want. Go right ahead. This rule is now void. The sky is the limit.

 

Thank you. I disagree with part of your idea (about discussion), but you're completely right that non-spammers shouldn't have to pay the price because of an occasional spam post (I don't know if it even happens much). As I said, if people don't want to solve "spam" scenarios, then they should feel free not to.

OK, I think it's about time some serious rules are laid down for this thread.

 

1. Only 3 scenarios can be posted within a 24 hour period. That's more than enough, and it prevents people from spamming scenarios for a high post count.

 

I don't think this is such a big deal, honestly. If people don't want to solve particular "spam" scenarios, they don't have to.

 

2. When solving a scenario, you must account for every train involved. Use calculated TPH (Trains Per Hour) levels and schedules for help. Also, make reroute that follow the track layout of the subway. For unoffical, but generally accurate track maps: http://nycsubway.org...bway_Track_Maps

 

GOOD rule.

 

3. Try to make the best reroute possible. Think of these situations as real. Try not to make reroutes that would confuse the average rider, but also try to provide the best service to every area. Avoid shuttle buses, as they can be scarce. Try to provide options from other lines. (For example, if 8th Avenue is shut down, try increasing service on the , , and .)

 

Completely agreed.

 

4. In situations where you have to add TPH to line, consider the rule than no track can handle more than 30 TPH at once. Also, do not simply say to put more trains on the line. There isn't enough equipment for that.

 

THANK YOU Threxx. If people followed this, there would be fewer "fantasy" solutions. IMO, the worst fantasy solutions are the impossible ones, NOT the foaming ones.

 

 

Also, for rating other members' solutions:

1. Be nice. Don't call them a foamer unreasonably.

 

I don't agree with the "unreasonably" idea...Nobody should call each other foamers here IMO. People should just say, "That's a ridiculous solution that doesn't work because of x, y, and z."

 

2. Rather than just saying every single one of their solutions is bad and leaving it there, offer alternatives.

 

+1

 

3. If they did a good job, compliment them!

 

+1

 

4. Discusion is encouraged! It helps to enrichen this thread.

 

YES. Completely agreed. If some people don't want to discuss the scenarios, nobody's telling them that they have to.

 

FInally, when creating scenarios:

1. Be realistic. Don't say things like "All of Manhattan is exploded." That's just unrealistic and outlandish.

2. Specify whether something is to be short or long term. It helps in solving.

3. Finally, specify time of day. This is not optional, as TPH varies through the day/week.

 

Okay, but I think that when the time of day is unspecified, it should be assumed to be rush hour.

 

Most important, have fun!

 

NOTE: Foaming is frowned upon, as it increases the chances of this thread to get locked and it just makes you look bad. Try to stay away from it.

 

Agreed. But as I said, we should have no personal attacks based on foaming...

 

And really, we should just have someone post a scenario, then another person solves it and posts their own if they want to. Turning this thread into a discussion sort of ruined it and I'm not really enjoying this thread any more.

 

Look, I think that a discussion about what is the best way to solve a scenario is actually very productive. Rather than just making this a silly game thread, we can try to think about what the MTA should do if such scenarios happened in real life. Thinking about what's the best way to handle a Manhattan Bridge closure IMO is much better than if one guy just says, "(insert random station here) and (insert random station here) are all impassible," and everybody comes up with a bunch of lazy solutions.

 

I'd say that we as members shouldn't be making rules about what other people can or can't post. We should feel free to advise other members and encourage them to follow these guidelines, but having ordinary members as the police is SURE to create wars and get this thread locked. In other words, we should feel free to criticize other members for doing things wrong (e.g. posting bad scenarios), but we shouldn't say, "YOU JUST BROKE THE RULES!!!".

 

Besides, I really think that creating strict rules about what and when people can post will just make this thread less fun. IMO, we just have to accept that there are going to be a few bad posts in this thread...

 

Logistically speaking, it makes more sense to convert the propulsion, because the majority of the NTT fleet shares the Alstom propulsion system, so that makes for better parts interchangeability.

 

If the MTA cared about interchangeability, then why would they have ordered the R179s with MITRAC propulsion?

Due to bomb threat at Empire State Building, any subways or trains including LIRR, Amtrak and NJ Transit cannot access 34th St, Penn Station or PATH 33rd St Station.

Also in addition, another bomb threat bring closure on 59th St between Columbus Circle and 5th Av/59th St, which bring closure of subway stations at 59th St-Columbus Circle, 5th Av-59th St.

Trains are not allowed to stop on 59th St-Columbus Circle.

Trains affected: 1, 2, 3, A, B, C, D, E, F, M, N, Q, R

 

Central Park West between 66th St & Columbus Circle

Broadway between Columbus Av-65th St & 57th St.

59th St betweeen Columbus Av & Madison Av.

5th Av from 65th to 57th Sts.

6th-7th Avs between 59th St & 57th Sts.

 

7th, 5th Avs between 39th & 27th Sts.

 

6th and 8th Avs between 28th & 40th Sts.

All cross streets between Madison Av & 9th Av are closed.

Bonus #1: Reroute PATH, LIRR, NJT, Amtrak.

Bonus #2: Reroute M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M7, M10, M20, M34/M34A SBS, M104 and all Express Buses.

Street closured:

 

 

I heard about it too. I heard they were changing to Alstom.

 

Who did you hear it from?

Via 53 Street - 8 Avenue Local.

 

That doesn't work.

No service b/w World Trade Center & Times Square-42 Street, via 8 Ave Express - Broadway Express.

 

Can you please say this in a less confusing way? IMO in the context of this thread, explaining specifically where the trains do run is clearer than "no trains between ____ and ____".

Via 6 Ave Local.

Via 6 Ave Express.

 

No service b/w 9 Avenue & 59 Street.

 

According to this: http://www.nyctransi...ur/#entry576435

All trains should be able to fit in the 6th Avenue Line.

 

on one track is too many TPH.

NEXT: due to switch replacement, the 6 Av express tracks are unusable between 42 St and 34 St.

R188s are not any different from the R142As. Maybe a few minor cosmetic changes, but the main change is to the propulsion. Plus if anything, I'm sure the pics would be somewhere on google.

 

Really? Where did you here that the propulsion would necessarily be changed? I thought the only confirmed change was CBTC.

I really wish they had rebuilt the Franklin Av shuttle so that trains could pull in and terminate at Eastern Parkway for the IRT....oh well.

 

BMT/IND trains can't fit on IRT platforms, unfortunately.

 

NEXT: the switch to the northbound loop north of 138 St-Grand Concourse is stuck in favor of the Woodlawn Line. Remember that the , , and (roughly 39 TPH total) can't fit on one track.

@ Brooklyn, I see what you're saying about the problems with the way the BMT was designed. I didn't say that the Brighton Line would only have a "few" fewer TPH; I said that a few TPH to Manhattan (10 TPH) is better than a lot of TPH (20 TPH) to Atlantic Avenue.

 

The real problem is that we've got five lines worth of ridership, and only the capacity to fit three lines (and you say two lines) into Manhattan. I've realized that no matter how we route the trains, we'll still have the same number of riders crowding onto the same number of trains. I guess you could make the argument that terminating trains at Atlantic Av forces people onto the IRT (and thus reduces crowding on the BMT), but it's not like the IRT has that much room to spare either. The fact remains that there isn't enough capacity to meet demand without the Manhattan Bridge.

 

I learned something today.

 

 

Dear god what has this thread turned into.

A discussion.

Brooklyn, what you fail to understand is that running a few TPH to Manhattan is better than none at all. As far as crowding goes, running the at 20 TPH to Atlantic Avenue is basically no better than zero...Those same passengers will crowd on another train to Manhattan. Same with the ; if you cut it to Atlantic Avenue, it's not like those riders suddenly disappear. They can either get on a , , , or train.

 

It wouldn't matter if you ran a million TPH on the if the didn't take people to their destinations. We'd still be dealing with the SAME low amount of TPH to Manhattan.

 

I think that the real problem is that there isn't enough capacity in the Montague St tunnel period for ridership. It doesn't matter which trains you send through it or which ones you choose to cut back.

Are we working under the assumption that there is a crossover at Atlantic Av to allow said trains to terminate?

 

Yes, I guess. Although, if we're not, we can still debate whether Brighton can do okay without increasing the and cutting the to Atlantic.

¹ Otherwise, the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, with 20tph-worth of people waiting for 10tph-worth of trains. Whether they transfer

We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av...

 

Also, the problem with your logic is that you're acting like and trains get completely full at that point, which I highly doubt.

 

My solution for the tunnel:

: 6 TPH

: 10 TPH

: 6 TPH

: 6 TPH

I insist on increasing trains since the trains will not be running along the Brighton Line.

 

You're completely missing my point, which is that there's no reason to give the Brighton Line more service if Brighton riders will all be transferring to other lines (with no extra service). First of all, your examples with the and aren't valid because those exceed 30 TPH...Second of all, having the on one track works reasonably well on 60 St. Keep in mind, the , , and lines currently have some of the better on-time performance in the system despite the fact that they all converge. Sure, having them share tracks for a longer distance will cause delays (I understand that), but there are plenty of lines that are plagued by some delays but still work well enough.

Another red herring.

 

Please read my posts carefully. I am not writing to solve "overcrowding issues". Please read what my argument is. i repeated it several times.

 

You insist on increasing service to solve overcrowding issues. My point was that there's no reason to do that, since riders will add crowds to another line (because there isn't room for the increased in the tunnel to Manhattan). I'm saying that if you don't increase the , there is enough room in the tunnel. Keep in mind that there are other lines that are very close to 30 TPH, and while they suffer from some delays, they still are okay.

But let's look at YOUR argument and TheSubwayStation:

 

The capacity argument when looked at deeper falls apart--remember there would be no service...There would probably have to be no fewer than 15 trains per hour (rush hours). According to sources, it's probably closer to 18. This is based on TPH info posted on these forums.

 

Let's be conservative here:

 

9 trains

10 trains

15 trains ***again, remember, there has to be compensation for the train.***

--------------------------------

 

That's a lot of trains for two tracks.

 

And can there really be less service? (taking away a few TPH?) People are going to hold doors and trains are going to linger in stations longer. Trains will be more packed. Wait times will increase.

 

 

Just a friendly critique.

 

This makes no sense to me, because your plan just takes those and riders and puts them ALL onto the , , , and trains. Why not just centralize the crowding to the ? Your plan wouldn't solve the overcrowding issues; it just shifts them over to other lines.