agar io

The has been a mess period.

I totally agree. On Thursday at 23 St at about 6:30 PM, I was waiting for a southbound that took 15 minutes to come. During that time, I think there were one or two trains that bypassed the station and were jam-packed.

It's honestly like this every other day I take the . Northbound is a little better, if you consider actually stopping at the station as an improvement.

It's a little complicated, because west of Woodside six tracks still exist.

That, and east of 51 Av, the subway tracks are right next to the LIRR tracks, which presents a whole new set of problems (i.e. FRA regulations, which is the reason that the PATH needs an expensive positive train control system).

Even getting past these regulations, west of the 51 Av bridge, there's not that much space for the bypass to dip underground or rise above the LIRR tracks due to the proximity of the Winfield Junction to the 51 Av overpass. I'd estimate that there is only about 200 ft of space at most, which would make for a pretty tight ramp.

The question then is, underground or above the LIRR? Underground is expensive, but it should cost "only" 750 million to a billion dollars if there are no intermediate stations and you use a TBM. Overground is cheaper until Woodside, where the line would either need to divert over Woodside Avenue and the train, or over the train using a very high viaduct to clear the 's already high structure. From there, I guess you can go underground at Sunnyside Yard, right after Woodside locals finish complaining about how the 60-foot-tall bypass is ruining their view of Manhattan.

Or you can use underground bores the entire way, spend $3 billion on the 71 Av station and the tunnels between Sunnyside Yard and 71 Av (well, assuming the 71 Av station is built in a minimalist fashion and no intermediate stations are built, otherwise expect $1 billion per intermediate station).

More options?

You could connect it to the AirTrain JFK. Not very good in practice, but it's another option that at least one organization is seriously considering (the RPA).

Don't forget, the is going all the way up to Dyre this time. Why suspend it and force people to pack onto shuttle buses and then the and ?

Oops, I forgot the Dyre line was open this weekend. I see the point of the now.

I must have confused this GO with the one when the ran only to 180 St, which was the pattern I was confused about.

That and the is running on 12 minutes headways since it's sharing the downtown express track with the and .

That makes sense.

.

There is work going on near the Joralemon street tubes. They don't want to squish all 3 lines into the City Hall Loop so they just cut the short. Ehhhh, the serves the same purpose on its normal service pattern, so whats ur point? The is extra.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I know about the loop situation. I meant that the was made redundant and could have been suspended entirely. If anything it could have been the that short-turned so the wouldn't be as redundant.

At 42 St-Grand Central I saw trains terminating at the uptown express track because of the switches. That was interesting.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but was there a particular reason why the is even running at all if it's only running between 180 St and 42 St? The seem to be providing all the alternate service.

I saw a trainset (9348-9352) on the that has the sign moving from left to right (as if it was scrolling). Anyone knows what that's about?

The sign use to say "QUEENS BLVD EXP" but now it says "QUEENS BLVD EXPRESS" and the rollsign doesn't have enough room to display the latter text in a single line.

1. The Staten Island provision is south of 59th Street not 95th. There was supposed to be a storage yard continuing down to 101 Street...

Exactly, because like I said...

The actual tunnel provision [at 59 St] ... was a spur line built for about 150 feet. The 95 St station was for another plan for a tunnel to SI, and that project was never started. I think there were plans for a tunnel at 2 separate places over time.

So two plans, one started but never finished, the other never started.

This plan is being changed

 

207 St-Far Rockaway via 8 Av Express, Fulton St Express (no stop at 80/88 Sts or Rockaway Blvd), Rockaway Line.

 

207 St-Lefferts Blvd via 8 Av Local, Fulton St Local

 

same as old plan

 

same as old plan

 

same as old plan

 

aka Rockaway Park Beach 116 St-Mott Av via Rockaway Line (new station to be built on Beach 81 St at Hammel's Wye)

 

179 St-Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 6 Av Local, Jamaica Local, Myrtle Av Line

 

Rockaway Park-95 St via Rockaway Line, Rockaway Beach Line, QBL Local, Broadway Local, 4 Av Local

 

71 Av-Euclid Av via QBL Super Express, 63rd St Line, 2 Av Local, Fulton St Local

 

(I know. I changed a lot!)

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This still has the problem of Jamaica Center not having enough capacity for the and . And the can't skip 80 St. The switches don't exist. Other than that, there is no point in having the skip just two stations in the peak direction, one of which is a major transfer point.

At the very least, the can be sent down the RBB with the to the Rockaways. And the should go via 53 St. Otherwise, 63 St doesn't have capacity for all of the and turquoise . It also distributes 6 Av riders better along Lex Av.

If the Staten Island tunnel was cancelled later then it originally was, the tail tracks would have been extended farther.

The actual tunnel provision was built south of 59 St, not 95 St. It was a spur line built for about 150 feet. The 95 St station was for another plan for a tunnel to SI, and that project was never started. I think there were plans for a tunnel at 2 separate places over time.

Are you sure, because I was definitely informed that 6 car R32/42's were not allowed on the   by a post that DJHammers (I think) posted sometime back.

6 car R32/R42s are not allowed. That does not mean 10 car R32/R42s are not allowed.

Thanks for the info. I think we can use either 4- or 10-car R32 trains, unless the MTA can't run 4-car trains either, in which case we run 8-car trains.

Hmmm. Could you get rid of the at night (and maybe on weekends too) and run the Astoria-CI local?

...

 Ditmars-CI lcl (via Sea Beach) (maybe via bridge nights/weekends?)

That's what the already does now, running local on Broadway at nights and on weekends...

Under my proposal, the   would run 24/7, with expanded service to match the current combined service levels of the   and  . On weekdays, it would run to Whitehall St as it currently does. Weekends and late nights, service would be extended to 95 Street to replace the  , which would no longer run during these times. In regards to the oft-mentioned yard issue, if the   can deadhead the entire length of the BMT Culver line to access Coney Island Yard, there's nothing preventing the   from doing the same.

 

To replace   service in Queens,   train service would run its full-length line 19/7. Looking at the upcoming Canarsie tunnel closure, I feel that riders will fight to retain that Myrtle Ave - 6th Avenue direct service after the construction work wraps up in 2020. Also, by running the   in lieu of the  , Queens Blvd local riders still retain their one-seat ride between Queens and Manhattan.

Not sure eliminating the on weekends would be a help to the QBL:

• 1. For one, it has no more direct service to Broadway on weekends, while it has 2 services to 6 Av. In case of the ubiquitous weekend construction, Broadway riders (like myself) would have to travel a long way, maybe to Herald Sq, to get a transfer from the QBL to the Broadway Line.
• 2. Also, QBL construction for CBTC means that there will be longer headways, with shorter trains (480 vs. 600 ft) while crowding gets worse. This will be especially true since riders will have to backtrack on the QBL local stations as well. If we do OPTO, that's even more undesirable.
• 3. The non-direct yard access won't be a problem, but the proposed route changes don't have particularly increased headways either. Right now, 95 St and Whitehall St can only turn a combined 20 tph (10 tph to 95 St, and 10 tph to Whitehall). This offers little benefits over the current setup since the current 4 Av Line, Broadway local tracks, and Astoria Line have virtually the same service frequency anyway, minus a few tph.
• 4. With the aforementioned bottleneck at 95 St, you can't add another local service to 4 Av unless it diverges at 36 St and goes to at least 9 Av.

I think it's reasonable to send some more trains to 96 St and some more trains to Astoria, though.

To address the 2 Av line crowding, I would maybe do Astoria-Whitehall at all times except nights, and all weekend & night trains to 96 St. Late nights, the and can be combined, but I would definitely not eliminate weekend service to the QBL.

I would add a stop at Sunnyside to the Bypass. Transfers would be available to Queens Plaza.

... I'm uncertain about the status of the Northern Blvd / Queens Plaza stop since the 63 St Line was connected to the QBL where the station would have been. On the bypass itself, there's 4 potential station locations:

• Sunnyside (provisional): If the Sunnyside Yards are developed and/or the LIRR / MNR junction station is ever built, Sunnyside would serve them.
• Woodside - 61 St: Self-explanatory. Could serve as a decent terminal for the   if the Bypass has to be shortened due to lack of funds.

Both good ideas. I think if the bypass were built, it should not be directly perpendicular to the QBL. It should curve northeast and run parallel to the QBL only at the 36 St station, where a transfer passageway can be built. Or, if it has a connection to Queens Plaza, the very western end of the bypass platform could connect to Queens Plaza station via passageway. The connection would be about as long as the connection from the  to the    at Court Sq.

I'd add the Woodside station too, but the 51 Av station would have low ridership, so it can be completed later as an infill station. Woodhaven Blvd might be a transit hub for the buses and an RBB spur, but it's a little far from QCM.

(51 Av is in the middle of an industrial area with typically 2-story houses, so that's why I suggest it be an infill station first.)

According to the schedules, between 7:30 and 8:30 there are supposed to be 14 trains, 14 trains, and 21 trains passing through 125 St. I think the train could be increased to 24 tph without negatively affecting service, since the SAS now exists to take some relief off the local trains. SAS currently only helps the express trains by siphoning riders off at 86 St, preventing further delays.

True, but it also helps the riders at 96, 77, and 68 St, in addition to the aforementioned at 86 St. Now only people west of 3 Av find it convenient to take the , instead of the entire UES.

It could possibly help the gain 3 more tph in the peak, like you said. There could be 12 local and 12 express in the peak direction, similar to the service headways.

I can foresee plenty of delays occurring at 57th and 7th, if trains are sent up 2nd Ave.

I also think that would happen, which is why there should be more service to 96 St and more service to Astoria to cover the s diverted from Astoria to 96th.

How many trains ought to go through 125 Street on Lexington Avenue? And how many trains actually go through that station?

According to the reports found on www.straphangers.org, on the express tracks, the tph ought to be:

• AM rush - 25 - 13 trains, 12 trains
• PM rush - 24 - 14 trains, 10 trains

What it really is:

• - Only 71% of trains on time http://www.straphangers.org/statesub15/lines/4profile.pdf
• - Only 67% of trains on time http://www.straphangers.org/statesub15/lines/5profile.pdf

So I think with 70% of all express trains on time during the rush hour, I'd say the actual frequencies are probably around 17-18 tph, which is really low for a line that was supposed to have about 27 tph.

Also the actual tph may be more than my cited figure, so if there's actually a timetable for 30 tph, then the actual number of trains may only be 21 tph.

(Edit: Added breakdown of trains per service.)

If QBL bypass happens, 2nd Ave shouldn't get to use it. Reroute the or there, because connections from those lines are *so* much better than from 2nd Ave. The can use the freed up express slots on normal QBL

Agreed, but the bypass would only feed into the 63rd Connector, unless someone wants to build a huge flyunder from the bypass to the mainline QBL to Queens Plaza. It would be the . The  would go regular express all the way from 179 to Queensbridge then use the 2 Av Line.

I'm going to assume you're talking about an extension via HHE. If anything the priority for a local extension should be RBB, since it has a lower cost/rider for sure.

Yes, I do mean HHE, though RBB does seem busier. Since the already uses the RBB south of Rockaway Blvd, this can also be an opportunity to cut the to use only the Lefferts branch.

I'm not sure Rockaway riders want QBL local though...

If we're talking SAS Phase 3 and Queens Bypass, I'd also like to see a three-stop spur off the QBL to 108 St, Main St, and Kissena Blvd/Queens College. The spur would go off the QBL local and express tracks. The Woodhaven Blvd station could be converted to an express station.

Now the questions are:

• Which services go QBL local to 71 Av?
• Which services go QBL express?
• Which services go QBL super-express?
• Which services split off the QBL at Woodhaven?

This is also a chance for all you guys asking for the to be re-extended to actually extend the . After CBTC installation is complete, you can fit up to 78 tph collectively on the QBL and bypass: 32 tph on each of the local and express tracks west of Woodhaven, plus 14 on the bypass, merging with the up-to-16 tph that use both 63rd and QBL express. Big improvement from the 45-50 tph using the QBL now.

(Assuming, of course, that there are theoretically extra cars available for this extension.)

Remember, , , , , or can’t have R32 or R42 because of Montague clearance issues.

Rumor has it, that that issue may have been fixed.

If worse comes to worst, the R32s can go on the or (not that many non-transit enthusiasts would like it).

28-30 tph are supposed to pass through 125 St during the rush. The biggest bottleneck of the line is at Grand Central, where dwell times of 45-60 seconds prevent more than 25-27 tph from passing through. Having a two-platform configuration instead of the 3-platform design at Penn Station doesn't help either.

During the AM rush southbound, the is timetabled for every 4-5 minutes for a frequency of 12-15 tph, the every "3-6 minutes" according to the official schedule (which is a huge difference between 10 and 20 tph), and the collectively is timetabled for every 2.5 minutes for a total 24 tph. So on the express tracks at 125 St, there is supposed to be between 22 and 35 tph according to the timetable, which I'll take with a grain of salt since express trains definitely do not run every 100 seconds.

During the PM rush northbound, the   is timetabled for every 4-6 minutes for a frequency of 10-15 tph, the   every 5 minutes for a frequency of 12 tph, and the   collectively is timetabled for every 3-5 minutes for a total 12-20 tph. The express tracks at 125 St would have 22 to 27 tph, which is around the block signals' capacity.

Let's just install CBTC on the , add more cars, extend the to Co-op City, and build a three-track terminating facility at City Hall to increase Lex service instead. (Kidding, that'll happen only in a foamer's dream.)
 
Seriously, though, the MTA should consider connecting the local tracks to the 63 St Connector tracks at 57 St-7 Av for greater service flexibility. Then the can be extended to 9 Av with increased frequency. A few trains per hour, displaced by increased service, can then go up the 2 Av line to 96 St. I don't predict there'll be much of an effect unless people really want to skip 28 St, 23 St, 8 St, and Prince St during weekdays, in which case some s can go up Second Avenue instead, with all and the rest of the going to Astoria.

For this, I agree you might need to keep some R32s for service. Of course, like all other proposals to improve MTA operations, this will probably take 20 years...

That's a bit of back tracking. If not available just take the to Houston for the

I thought Kew Gardens was talking about going to the from Downtown Brooklyn, but yeah, the and then the makes sense too.

I forgot to add this: As for transferring to the from the southbound , you could transfer to the at Bway-Lafayette and then the at Canal.

MTA news release on SAS passenger growth, and Lex reduction:

 

<a href="http://www.mta.info/news/2017/02/01/second-av-subway-ridership-growing-rapidly">Second Av Subway Ridership Growing Rapidly</a>

Thanks for the link. I noticed in the article that although Lex ridership is down and 2 Av ridership is pretty high, the cumulative ridership from UES stations has risen from last year to this year (e.g. 96th St went from 30,000 riders at one station to 55,000 at two stations).

I think that it should be done. It would provide access between the B D and the J without having to transfer to the F or M in between.

You can transfer at Atlantic Av from the to the respectively, then go to Canal St for the .

It doesn't explain why the connection wasn't built during the Manhattan Bridge closure, though.

Entrances might be crowded as well if the ridership keeps growing on SAS. I don't know why they didn't take the advantage of full size mezzanines, to have small entrances located in the middle of the stations. That would help distribute the crowd using the full mezzanines.

That would mean even more tunnels to bore diagonally through the earth, which costs major $$$$.

It could work for the relatively shallow Phase 2, though. A smaller side entrance might also work for 96 St since it's closer to the ground and the mezzanine is right under the street

One thought: Does anyone notice the sound of the rails from 96 St until 57 St-7 Av on the Broadway line and on the from Times Square until 34 St-Hudson Yards?

Continuous welded rail, and a new type of track bed

For some reason, the wheels on trains (doesn't matter if it's R188 or R62A) make a loud grating noise on the curve between 39 St and 10 Av. It's quieter than the screeching noise on other lines, but it's still a loud annoying buzz noise.

I haven't ridden the new in a while but I think the same annoying sound occurred.

Spotted a 68a during the PM.

I rode a R68A from Times Sq to Q-boro Plaza yesterday. While on that train, I saw two consists of R68/A trains going in the opposite direction.

Remember that the primary purpose is to serve Manhattan. 9 Avenue is the closest station to Manhattan where it can terminate.

The runs 8 tph and the has 9 tph, so a higher-frequency service to serve the SAS wouldn't interfere much with regular service if there were only 3-4 more tph added. The 9 Av short-turns would need to coordinate with both the and mainline though.

Even if this were feasible, I wouldn't do this until after the R179s arrive. About 50 or 60 R32s would need to be transferred to the so 40-48 of the 's R68s can go to the . This may require either a second crew member on the or shorter trains, but that's the price we're going to have to pay if we increase service to 96 St.

These should actually be priority stations to turn into better terminals since they are so taxed.

Now that I think about it, if we use 96 St as an overflow terminal for the , everything is fine on the northern end, at least until Phase 2 SAS opens. But I agree that it is heavily used.

First death on the line

That's pretty sad. I think the man was dead on the scene, though, since the hospital is a block away.

Maybe it had to do with his being homeless in this cold weather? (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Body-Found-Subway-Train-New-York-City-Q-Second-Avenue-NYPD-Police-Investigation-412259933.html)

Cops found the man unresponsive on the train at the 96th Street stop shortly after midnight. He had no visible signs of trauma and authorities believe he may have been homeless and died of natural causes.

----

It's not that often that people are found dead on the subway, is it? The last time I remember hearing about it was the man found dead at Dyre Avenue. My friend thought it was funny that he was found there...

Nope, but when it does happen, it's creepy. Like this one: http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/dead-man-aboard-m-rush-subway-corpse-rode-no-1-train-hours-article-1.839339

A dead man rode the subway for hours yesterday with thousands of morning rush-hour commuters who barely noticed him, police said.