R42N

On September 21, 2017 at 4:40 PM, darkstar8983 said:

 

 

I can see that everyone on this forum just wants to rip me to shreds on everything ????

 

1. First of all, the Astoria line has suffered from poor service when compared to the rest of the subway system because it is serviced by two unreliable routes. Even now in 2017 where every line is crapping out and giving off ~60% on time performance (being optimistic here) hence why service cannot be made even worse by having a mixed fleet. The trains are NOT leaving and arriving on time to give them ample time to send the next R160 train out and swap that trains letter/destination: sometimes you have a situation where you have both Ditmars tracks occupied with R68 trains. What do you do then? The MTA saw this problem when the R160s were first coming onto the and the reliability of that line had hit its lowest point because FIVE different car classes were assigned to this route.

 

2. In general (I also have eyewitnesses in addition to myself) the Astoria GOs were every other week. And just you wait until they update the website to show the rest of the month of October and the being the only Astoria service.

 

3. Those hipsters don't give a damn about anyone and would sooner sell your soul for a sip of beer. I for see them moving to Astoria and turning it into another hellhole like Williamsburg.

 

4. Anyways getting back on topic: if everyone seems to be satisfied with this reduction in service, why don't they just make the run a bit more often to not have people left on the platforms because they don't fit on the train.

I agree with most of your points Darkstar8963. Last week, they said  trains were going to run express from Astoria Blvd to Q-Boro, but the work was cancelled, so the  ’s ran local, but the ’s remained up the upper east side. 

I don’t think the R68’s are the problem, truthfully. Even if it’s a  that must come back as an  they will sometimes just switch the front rollsign and that’s it. Heck, 1 of the 3 sets of R68’s they have has a jammed rollsign that shows the upside down  . 

The big issue is the fact that the  is a completely un-reliable route. Even during peak rush, Ditmars will be behind, so to keep up with demands in Brooklyn, they will dispatch 2 to maybe 3  ’s in a row to make sure there isn’t a 20 minute gap in Sea Beach. 

Additionally, when the Astoria work isn’t completed on-time, then you might not see a  in Queens until 4pm. 

On your point about the millennial hipsters, while it’s wrong of me and totally opinionated, I completely agree. I remember when I immigrated from the Balkan mountains in the 1970s, and everyone in Ditmars Steinway spoke Greek. There was a great, safe, feeling that made Astoria my favorite neighborhood. 

To me, that 14th Street/Greenwich/Williamsburg culture makes me sick, and I would move out of Astoria if that culture came here. 

22 minutes ago, Lance said:

I think that's intentional on the part of the mods there on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to topics such as this. It's meant to be more of a casual look into things like this, rather than a look into every microscopic aspect of subway operation. If you ever comb through some Wikipedia articles, not necessarily based on the subway, you'll see a message that says the present iteration of an article is too detailed for the general audience. For that kind of granular detail, you're better off coming to a transit forum like this.

Another thing to consider is that Wikipedia likes specific sources. While anyone with eyes can see that the shuttle uses 42s, there is currently no written proof of this, hence its omission on the Wikipedia car roster.

Right, that’s what I’m saying, Wikipedia is great for entry level knowledge, but at an advanced level, I recommend other sites, including these forums. as you said, for more precise knowledge. 

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I fail to see why the trains that start at 86th Street are newsworthy. The only station they miss is Coney Island and they go to Astoria like every other normal (N), meanwhile the trains to 96th Street are on a separate branch that the normally doesn't serve. Now if there were trains that ended at 86th Street, it would probably get mentioned. (The trips that begin at E 105 Street also don't get mentioned by Wikipedia either)

This is still my point. Everything on Wikipedia is objective and unofficial. You believe what you believe, and I believe that saying “all trains” stop at Coney Island while “most trains” go to 5th Ave/59th is inaccurate , because it is. Wikipedia is a (frequently wrong) encyclopedia, not a news source, so if it was reliable, it wouldn’t make these small mistakes. 

It’s not just the  , there are countless issues that keep me away from Wikipedia, like how the R42 is only assigned to the and  even though they are clearly also running on the  . 

This expands far beyond New York transit, Wikipedia is great for entry level quick knowledge, but makes many mistakes at the advanced level.  

6 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

The  trains via Sea Beach are indeed  train crews. The  is not an internal  train, just the /  share a fleet/employee pool. 

I understand what you are saying, but per the internal work programs, the  ’s are ’s the same way Second Ave  ’s are  ’s (which I ironically found via Wikipedia)

https://progressiveaction.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/sub-division-b-general-distribution-fall-2016-wp-book.pdf

5 hours ago, Lance said:

Wikipedia is not a transit guide. While the northbound trains are labelled as trains on the external signs, the actual schedule released by the MTA, which Wikipedia is basing their information on, states that those selected trains are still trains despite running to 96 Street.

That’s exactly my point, Wikipedia is not a transit guide, which is why I don’t rely on them, due to their spotty knowledge. 

Take a look at that schedule, there are seven  ’s that do not originate at Coney Island, as they come in from the yard, yet that isn’t mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, while the three AM (N)’s, that to the public appear as  ’s northbound, and usually appear as  “last stop” southbound until 57/7, receive their own “branch” on the station guide. 

. 

On October 1, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Union Tpke said:

I have heard about this. I edit wikipedia, and try to improve existing articles and make them more accurate. While it is wikipedia, there is quite a lot of information on the SAS there. I am Kew Gardens 613 there, and along with a few other users, I have added information on the project's history and construction. In fact, the article had gotten way too large, so the History of the Second Avenue Subway was split off into another article. There are many sources listed for the article that might be able to point you in the right direction.

Good luck on your project!

I find Wikipedia’s knowledge of the SAS service a little spotty. 

For example, it’s states, that the train makes selected trips to 96st /  2ave, which is true, but it only does this in the southbound direction. All northbound runs have been signed as ’s via Sea Beach since January, yet there is no acknowledgment of the ’s running northbound on Sea Beach on Wiki

One counter argument would be that they are internal trains, but then aren’t all  trains internal trains? Why are it’s selected trips shown on Wiki? 

Of course, I don’t rely on it, but I find it interesting when, at the 72nd street station, it promotes northbound  ’s, when there has never been a northbound  train outside of a service change. 

The MAS ( Maximum Allowable Speed) on the LIRR is 80 mph or so IIRC and I think their equipment is more powerful than anything NYCT runs on a regular day. I'd guess that the only two stretches in the subway system that could possibly see anything approaching even 60 mph would be on the Rockaway flats and a fully repaired Sea Beach express track style. The signal system the subways run under wasn't designed for high speed operations in the first place. CBTC wouldn't really help either because of the relatively short distance between stations and the physical layout of most sections of the system. Remember that after the Union Square wreckage the federal government stepped in and found insufficient stopping distances between signals throughout the system. That's where the speed governing and timers came from. On the LIRR sections where trains approach MAS the station are far apart, for example KO-CI-Brentwood-Deer Park on the Ronkonkoma Branch those stations are about five miles apart yet the trains usually run about 60 mph or so. I'd guess the Hicksville to Jamaica run (non stop) is the only one I've traveled where the trains run close to 80 mph and I'm guessing the " Cannonball " between Speonk and the Hamptons is a high speed run where trains run at MAS. Perhaps a newly constructed Queens bypass running isolated stopping once between the east and western ends of the borough could approach 70-80 mph but otherwise anything else is a pipedream IMO. Carry on.

While it’s probably not that fast, and off-topic, I used to love riding the R32 Train through the 60th Street tunnel 20-30 years ago. As a child, it felt like it was going 80-90, with the wind making the highest pitch sound imaginable through the railfan window (my ears are still bleeding), even though it was obviously slower. 

I think they're building extra temporary staircases at the stations that will still be open, to handle the existing passenger volume...

 

I will say this is one situation where shuttle buses would be a good thing, unless they choose to run additional Q102 short turns like the B9.

From Beebe, they will have to run additional Q102 short turns, but even then, that’s a 10-15 minute delay. Between 39 and QBoro the buses crawl as they go through Northern Blvd, resulting in heavy delays. My plan would be to walk to 36 street on the / , which will overcrowd the already placed Queens Blvd Line. 

Apparently, the MTA has declared that no elevators will be installed at any of these stations. Just wait until the politicians catch wind of it and force the MTA to install elevators at 30 Av, Broadway 36 Av, and 39 Av, and not just at Astoria Blvd (planned for future elevator installation). Note: Astoria-Ditmars Blvd, being the end of the route, should also be equipped with elevators, especially at the end of the EL near Ditmars Blvd at the TD bank (or even a handicapped-accessible pedestrian ramp with new fare control at Ditmars Blvd).

 

And yes, the original plan would have had a similar operation to what is seen on the current Manhattan-bound and Coney Island-bound in Brooklyn, with in the first phase, Manhattan-bound trains running express from Astoria Blvd to Queensboro Plaza (which could have had the benefits of rehabilitating Astoria Blvd at the same time) and the second phase having the service pattern reversed (Astoria-bound trains are express). However, there were several operational issues with this plan;

 

1. The Astoria Line would have been reduced to 2 tracks for the entire stretch of the route and any problem along the line warrants an immediate suspension of the between Queensboro Plaza or Times Square and Astoria-Ditmars Blvd. We have seen the lack of flexibility and the consequences of such an idea with the line's Culver Rehabilitation (any hiccup shuts down service south of Church Av and sends all trains trapped in Brooklyn through the West End/4 Av Express route. 

 

2. The ridership at the four stations cannot all be accommodated at Astoria Blvd to transfer between the local and the express trains.

 

3. I am not even sure if the track capacity of the express track (at least Manhattan-bound) can accommodate the 14-15 TPH of the during rush hours. That would lead to definitely a reduction to the service and people being left on platforms waiting for multiple trains to pass before being able to board a train.

 

4. Due to the lack of track capacity and the necessity to make track inspections/repairs during the project, Astoria might as well say goodbye to the train outside rush hours and adios to the train outside of weekdays from 5:30AM to 11:30PM.

 

 

With the current proposal, the ridership from 30 Av needs to be distributed between Astoria Blvd and Broadway, and 36 Av's ridership dispersed between 39 Av, Steinway St , and Broadway, leading to serious overcrowding. 

This makes sense, and it’s far more logical, but 8 months without service will be tough...

I’m contemplating moving my parents to one of those high rise condos right off Beebe Ave, but since my father has trouble walking for extended distances, he can’t walk to Washington Ave or Queensboro Plaza, so the hope was, when service was effected, he could take the train to Hoyt Ave and transfer back. 

Again, 8 months with no convenient alternative is not fun, and while it’s totally selfish of me in the grand scheme, I’m not sure if I want the station to be “enhanced” (especially if elevators aren’t coming in)..... 

It looks like 30 Avenue and 36 Avenue on the Astoria line will be the first elevated stations to undergo the ESI program. Starting Oct. 23rd, both stations will close for approximately eight months.

I was under the assumption it was one platform at a time, but I guess that plan is scrapped??

It isn’t mentioned on any of the articles that are covering the closures.

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170914/astoria/nw-subway-station-closures-30th-avenue-36th-avenue-oct-23-mta-renovations

I saw that the MTA has wooden boards on the station which looks like they're getting ready

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Only at 36th Ave.

Ha, please. I took Metro-North last week. I've been riding long enough to know what to do when. I sat down and waited to see if they would come around and since they didn't I never activated that ticket, so I'll keep it for next time. I always wait until they come around before activating and I have yet to hit a dead spot when activating the ticket, so I wouldn't bother. If they come around and it isn't activated they can come back to you that's all. They may get cranky that you didn't have it activated already but you can always play dumb or say you lost internet. Things happen.

Saying "activate before boarding" is a cheap way to make money. From Fleetwood to Scarsdale, for example, I can roughly take 10 trips on 3 passes (30% chnace the conductor comes arround). If I use ETix and "activate" before he comes to me, 10 Trips needs 10 passes.

Thus, there is no beneifit on activating your ticket before she/he comes around.

To give 2 Avenue the 6 TPH to 6 Avenue, service would probably have to be reduced, meaning service would be increased to compensate. The is a loner in Brooklyn with a pair of tracks all to itself, so it shouldn’t pose much of a problem.

Did you by chance watch that public hearing discussing the opening of the SAS? Nearly every other speaker asked for additional 4th Ave local service, due to poor headways. An additional 1-2 TPH would be fine and is manageable at Bay Ridge. 

Even so, I don’t think it would be more than 1 extra TPH up QBL. You could add the 4 additional ’s to compensate the , and then run two QBL up SAS. The extra would cover those two QBL runs. 

It would appear from the schedule explorer on Google Maps that Astoria handles 18 TPH for a period of 30 minutes from 8:12 to 8:42 AM. A total of 9 trains leaves the terminal during that time. If you would the 8:43 AM train which leaves a minute outside of that range, it could be said that the maximum rush hour TPH of the line is 19 for a very short window of time.

 

Now I don’t know about the terminal congestion situation in Astoria, but Coney Island certainly has trouble turning its PM rush trains ( ) due to the crappy switch arrangements. 12 TPH is probably the limit for the Coney Island end of the , but the bigger problem is the junction at DeKalb Avenue.

 

That makes me think it might still be a good idea to keep both the and in Astoria for phase 1 to keep the loads manageable south of Canal Street. As for the extra service needed on 2 Avenue, do a different-colored temporarily, but it ought to be substantial enough to warrant christening (6+ TPH). I might add that building a Broadway local connection to 63 Street could enable a 6 TPH from 96 Street to 9 Avenue which would neatly fill in a need for more service.

As someone who lives along the Astoria line for years, I’d say the situation at Astoria is as good as it could be without be overwhelmed. It changes on a day by day basis, but generally you are looking at a train every 4 minutes at peak timing, with the odd time where it’s every 2 minutes, and then the other times when it’s every 6 minutes. It really does change every day, so I just go by the “general range” TPH. 

And I agree with you on your last point, I think service is fine with both the and , and DeKalb pretty much eats up any proposal you throw at it, and adding a fifth line puts a huge strain on it and the southern terminal. 

The only real-feasible scenario (at least at the present time until Phase 2/R211) is some extra service from a 6th Avenue Line that doesn’t go to DeKalb. So, either some ’s, or extra ’s. 

Obviously, with the extra service coming up to compensate riders, it seems like running extra trains up SAS is a win-win. 

By connecting the local tracks to 63 Street, you enable the less-frequent train to supplement 2 Avenue service. Then, all trains go to Astoria. 2 Avenue wouldn’t be overserved with both the and during phase 1, and it also wouldn’t fragment a letter. You can reliably determine that an goes from Astoria to Sea Beach and that a goes from 2 Avenue to South Ferry—all of them without exception! The could be switched off overnight and on weekends without major adjustments to any other service. For phase 2, however, this project isn’t necessary as the frequency of service contraindicates such a pattern of service.

True, currently, for every 20 trains out of Astoria, I’d say 12 are ’s and 8 are ’s, so yes, the is less frequent, and you wouldn’t have different designations running different routes weekdays and weekends. Additionally, with Second Ave customers getting used to the route with all of these GO’s and Astoria used to the , it would be an easy transition. 

However, there are the shortcomings: Only having the in Astoria would mean having 14 TPH. That’s 14 TPH merging at 34th and having to find to short turn a few at Kings Highway. And of course the elephant in the room, DeKalb. 

And, it’s not five lines, it’s basically four with increased service to match the , so it’s essentially five lines again.

Personally, I think there is going to have to be some compromise here. I don’t see anyway a line can be pulled off Astoria until the R211’s come in, which will be 2026, maybe 2030 if there are any delays. 

Short term, I think pulling some ’s up from the 6th Avenue Line is the only available option with car constraints as they are. 

I shouldn’t. The projected TPH requirement is only 14 TPH. They could have made this a non-problem if they connected the local tracks to 63 Street as well. I believe someone mentioned that the local trackways extend far enough to make this possible.

It’s most definitely feasible, and wouldn’t cost an exorbitant about of money. 

But if you could, can you explain how this would benefit the situation?

I just think it’s unrealistic to have five lines that would have to run at regular headways on the Broadway Line, at least until Phase 2 opens.

This persistent idea does bring up an interesting question. Does Myrtle Ave need 13 trains per hour at the height of the rush? That's approximately one train every five minutes. I'm all for adding service where it's needed and we know that Second Ave will need it sooner rather than later. However, are we sending trains from 96 Street to Metropolitan Av to meet an increased demand on both ends of the line or is it just a matter of sending to a workable southern terminal? I can see the need during the Canarsie tunnel reconstruction project with a lack of trains running into Manhattan. Besides that, not so much. Maybe I'm wrong, but the station ranking list has all of the Myrtle Ave stations in the 300s with the exception of Fresh Pond Rd (266) and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs (66).

This is a very good question. Personally, I think anyone between Broadway Junction and Canarsie would prefer to transfer at Broadway Junction (not everybody of course, but most people), which I’d assume would leave people seeking service from Bushwick Ave to about Graham Ave. That’s a lot of customers, but maybe not 13 TPH. 

I think it’s a matter of sending them to a workable southern terminal that accommodates riders. So, if Myrtle gets too much, it might make more sense to send them to Broadway Junction. 

You misread - he means, during L shutdown, run additional Myrtle trains to 2nd and 96th. Not 2nd and Houston.

Correct, I didn’t make that clear enough, my apologies. I still think of ’s going westbound on the Williamsburg as “southbound”, my fault. 

You're probably right that my annoyance of having heard this a thousand and one times clouds my judgement -- thanks for calling me out on that. 

 

That said, QBL (and Queens in general) does need more service, and especially after CBTC comes in, capacity will be extant for it, which is why I feel so strongly that the should be left alone. If you need more Forest Hills capacity, you can easily extend or trains to 179 during the rush, allowing select trains to go express (or not, I don't think it matters). 

 

Also: if you're increasing service for the shutdown, you probably don't want to be terminating trains at 2nd avenue...

 

You can make an induced demand case, but that only takes you so far. 

 

I think once the thing is over, we will have cars for a Broadway swap with increased service, so that should be done. 

Personally, I don’t see the Broadway Swap coming into effect (if at all) until Phase 2 opens. Astoria needs the 13-14 TPH it currently has (if not 14-15. And Sea Beach needs the 9 TPH. So, basically, while you’d be “swapping” you’d essentially be adding an extra line, especially if the Sea Beach train isn’t the same as the Astoria train. Without designations, the broadway swap would need these lines at consistent headways: 

Line 1: Forest Hills - Bay Ridge

Line 2: Astoria - Whitehall

Line 3: Astoria - Sea Beach/West End

Line 4: 96st - Coney Island (Sea Beach)

Line 5: 96st Coney Island (Brighton)

On Phase 1 alone, I truly don’t see any reason to justify an entire line being added to Broadway. When Phase 2 comes into effect, and service really needs to be pumped up, then, I think adding a line from 6th Avenue or Broadway could make some sense, but Phase 1 does not need an increase from 11 TPH to 20-21 TPH.  

Correct. Changing Broadway/6th Ave service patterns twice in 3 years will not go down well with anyone.

No, it won’t, but having crowded trains without additional service will go down worse. 

Personally, it’s all in how you present it. Take Wallyhorse’s proposal, for example.

It could be billed as a service enhancement with the return of the . 

Currently, the runs 8 TPH, that will be increased to 12-13. Where are you going to terminate those 4-5 extra trains? You could maybe terminate 1-2 more up in Forest Hills, but is extra 6th Avenue service needed up QBL? There’s already the Express and plenty of Locals, and then you’d still have confusion with the three overflow trains that wouldn’t be able to go up QBL. 

You could have Wallyhorse’s or go up SAS with those 4-5 TPH, and then terminate an extra 2-3 southbound at 2nd Avenue. That’s a 6-8 TPH train, which would be doable with the extra cars. 

Is there anything really wrong with that? Sure it’ll be some confusion, but you are going to have to terminate those extra ’s somewhere, and SAS will need extra service by the time the closes. 

Of course, the kinks would need to be worked out, to make the proposal do-able, but it’s a fine proposal. 

I think confusingness and lack of necessity does too. 

 

Commuters like predictability. In this day and age of broken subways, a 4 or 5 tph train will not come at any regular interval, and will probably suffer large service gaps. People won't use this because they will not know if they can rely on it. Furthermore, it will add a merge to the at 63rd, split a merge with the , and generally result in a mess. Send the down Queens Boulevard -- it's the second busiest corridor in the system and could use a few extra tph. For SAS, do the Broadway swap that literally everyone talks about. 

 

I am very for at least looking at this though. Maybe add a stop at 8th st too so it isn't just replicating existing stops on the underserved LES (or extend the new stops so that they go south/north from 14th/Houston, acheiving the same thing

The Broadway swap couldn’t happen until the R211’s come in, or until the R179’s if you want to hang on to most of the R32’s and R42’s, which are going to have to go sooner or later.....

If I had a dollar for every time he said that, or the whole orange spiel, I can fund phase 3 myself lol

At least it’’s a good proposal.

Does anyone remember the proposal 5 years or so ago, saying the R142A’s should stay on the so the posters favorite express announcement “making express stops in the Bronx” could live on? 

That must have been reiterated a dozen times, but always gave me a good laugh. 

Anyway, I kind of like his proposal of the split , I think car constraints are the one big hold up, that kind of kills most of these proposals, unfortunately. 

You have to remember, MNRR has a more amount of cars then the LIRR(including diesels), but with less riders. I don't think they're having a problem.

The LIRR had almost 20 million more riders in 2016 than MNRR.

MNRR has 885 EMUs, while LIRR has in the range of 870 or so(833 M7s') 

That’s fine, I get that the LIRR needs new cars with more urgency.

I, also, love the M3a’s on the MNRR, they have more seats and swing and sway considerably less. 

So, to confirm, as far as one can tell, there will be no M9’s heading to the MNRR?

They were putting up the canopies today, so I managed to grab some pictures.

 

 

 

I would have preferred a rounded glass canopy like 2nd Avenue but this isn't bad at all.

 

Those awful yellow tiles as you descend into the mezzanine have been replaced by a nice blue. You can see it in the last image.

Nice pictures, and a nice canopy, but the lack of uniformity is troublesome, in my perspective. 

While the regular green entrances aren’t stunning or modern, it’s nice that most every non-special entrance looks the same (with small, subtle, differences over the years) 

I was under the impression that after South Ferry, Hudson Yards and now 2nd Ave P1, the new “theme” was the arched/rounded glass with the familiar globe, regardless of the size or placement:

I think that, while, it’s good to have new an improved entrances, uniformity is important, and the MTA should consider picking one “theme” and sticking with it. 

In other words, the M9 and the M9A's are the same exact rolling stock, but the ones with the A's at the end are federally funded, according to an inside source MNRR will not recieve any type M9's at all.

Ok, so, there's no timetable to replace the M3's on MNRR? They refurbrished them well, but they are old cars. Maybe the next generation (M10?)

Only the LIRR will have M9As.

Ohh, I guess I shouldn't have trusted Wikipedia. So what will replace the M3A on MNRR?

I think both of you are right.  Sometimes those with power around here can be a bit cocky and condescending unnecessarily. It's all about how you say things.  I'm not a mod, but I were, my tone would be much different and I'd try to be reasonable with my responses instead of playing favoritism which also happens here.  At the same time, some folks just look at a map and BAM, come up with these crazy ideas. I'm not talking about you specifically, but some of them really leave me scratching my head.

Thanks, and, I agree.

I'd return the favor and say Lance and other moderators have done a lot of things to where they are, and between the lines he makes sense, but not everyone has the same level of subway expertise as others. I could have kept quiet during my commute, said nothing, but instead, because I was interested in discussion, which is the purpouse of the forums, I spent time looking at the demands that people asked for, issues, PDF schedules and current TPH, and made what I thought is the most fair solution. I'm however not a transit professional, and have a career in a different field, so I was fully aware that there might be flaws.

A fair moderator, in my opinnion (again, maybe I'm wrong and things are different here, in which case I wouldn't take the time to propose) would say something along the lines of "Interesting, however, there are various issues here". Questioning what goes through a persons head and making assumptions on my motives is not only un-professional, it's demaining to me, someone who has been on the Forums for half it's lifespan (since 2012) and, like Lance, enjoys all of the remarks made.

That is all.