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.

RR503

Senior Member
  • Content count

    1,291
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

RR503 last won the day on June 15

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,308 Excellent

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Drainage ditch

Recent Profile Visitors

1,789 profile views
  1. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    Yes. Much of the slowness in that area has to do with excessive installation of GTs. CBTC reduces the operational margin of error by giving control to a computer that can regulate train speed and spacing in real time, obviating any need (fictive or not) for extreme speed restrictions, increasing both design speed of the area in question and the actual speed, as operators do not have to guesstimate when timers will clear. Hopefully none. While Cuomo loves to fap to this stuff, it simply has never been tested. I know little of the technology beyond the superficial concepts and technologies underpinning it, and who knows, it may be workable, but given our current situation, this is *really* not the time to play test track. Thankfully, Byford gets this and is pushing for conventional installations.
  2. Yup. Was just there. Trains flagging through in both directions (n/b not stopping). But damn...
  3. RR503

    Plans move forward for SAS Phase II

    I also think it's important to remember that all those Bronx recapture plans were made when the 3rd Avenue el still existed in some form. The Bronx thus didn't really have major transit deserts, so the best the agency could plan for was the improvement of existing services, ie, recapture. Now, there is a very large, very densely populated hole in the borough's transit network. It strikes me as most reasonable for SAS to address that.
  4. The GTs create exactly the situation you describe. The ST (Station Timer) issue is that there are many of those signals (which allow trains to come closer to their leader near stations and interlockings) which are not properly signed, thus TOs will not take advantage of their function. NYCTA is currently in the process of mitigating that issue to allow faster/higher capacity operations. Oh, absolutely. The cause attribution side of things is being discussed extensively internally (something that shows through quite well if you watch the board video). I've never heard relief crews before, but I really like that idea. Generally -- and apologies if I'm repeating myself here -- terminal ops could be much simplified if we treated every terminal like a relay terminal. At the second to last (or last, in the case of a true relay terminal) stop, the outbound crew boards their respective cabs, rides to the last stop (or relay tracks), takes control, and reverses the train back out of the relays or last stop with only normal station dwell spent at the location of reversing. The inbound crew then disembarks at the train's first or second stop, and the process begins again. This configuration obviates the need for fumigation and standardizes procedures across the system, something we should certainly strive for.
  5. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    There was a guy yelling "Dj hammers expose yourself" at Brighton Beach, and then the normal RFW crowding, but it was on the whole relatively civilized. 8th Ave CBTC won't be active for another 5 or so years. It definitely won't affect car assignments for Canarsie. Also, pray, explain how 8th CBTC will affect the more than the . That seems like....suspect logic.
  6. RR503

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    There's a whole bunch of L outages planned for September/October/November in preparation for April, but idk about sooner.
  7. Sally Librera brought up the 7-line woes yesterday in committee. They've identified that the legacy signal system is responsible for the astounding number of delays that line faces (no surprise there -- they haven't maintained that sh*t properly since CBTC cutover got tangibly close), so hopefully they'll do *something* to mitigate it.
  8. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Forget ridership, think track layout. Let's imagine this is the best case scenario and some other Manhattan trunk is connected to Fulton local. Regardless of that, you can still only pull one track per direction out of Euclid onto the Liberty El, so 30tph. The line then branches once at Rockaway Boulevard, and once at Hammels. Even if you keep Rockaway Park a shuttle, you still aren't sending more than 15tph to FRock -- which happens to be that terminal's capacity sans CBTC. The layover issue is solved there -- and at every other stub terminal -- daily. When it's time for a train to go OOS, they fumigate and deadhead to either RPK yard or Pitkin. If you don't believe me go stand at Rock Boulevard at around 7 and watch the parade of empty trains head down the middle.
  9. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    That sounds like fake news to me. MTA is dumb, but not dumb enough to put 32s on a line whose main reroute option is a tunnel that can't fit them. I'd expect and as has been discussed ad nauseum at this point.
  10. It may seem like a name change but it's actually a really big improvement for the agency. For years, we threw delays whose cause wasn't rooted in some incident 'overcrowding,' because excess dwell is a) rampant and b) a factor largely out of the agency's control. Recategorizing these delays as 'operating environment' delays moves the onus of blame off of the riders and onto agency practices around all these issues -- including excess dwell, which can indeed be mitigated with improved ops practices. You can say you don't care why they're delayed, and yes, it isn't the rider's position to care, but the salient point here is that there is now an internal perspective shift regarding these ops delays, and a terminology change to promulgate that. Maybe you're right, and it is just mindless bureaucratic nameswapping. But given the agency's rank inability to diagnose these issues in the past, I'd say this may be among the most impactful rebrandings they could undertake. This is being addressed, but keep in mind that a lot of this has to do with operator training (or a lack thereof) so is a more long-term fight. That said, they are making an effort to improve ops around stations (better signing hidden STs being a big one) so I wouldn't give up hope on that yet.
  11. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    You can't have it both ways unless you want merging at a flat junction south of Whitehall. If you think Fulton would be getting too much service with both and , you can turn one at City Hall and/or Whitehall. I actually really like this idea. Attach ENY to Broadway Junction proper, reopen Woodhaven, and build a new El stop at Utica, and you thus have a really fast, functional route to Jamaica -- one that could finally provide the capacity needed to extend the subway further into Queens. Of course, integrating this replacement (and NYCTA system in general) into the LIRR fare system is a must -- you don't want to cut off LIRR riders' Brooklyn access -- but that is certainly something that falls into the category of 'things that should be done anyway.' It's less about the marginal throughput impact that that merge has and more about the intrinsic limits of splitting a double track feeder into four track line. All the areas along Fulton are growing at a good clip. Bed Stuy is gentrifying, ENY is rapidly becoming the next big thing in NYC development, and even the Rockaways now are feeling the hipster love. The may not be the , but they sure as hell aren't getting less crowded. I don't think of this tunnel as an immediate priority, but I do think it's a fun idea to consider in the long run.
  12. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    I thought worth sharing. A Lex RFW from 1905, including the pre-H system curve into GCT. https://www.loc.gov/item/00694394
  13. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    This is the point you're missing. The basis for this entire plan is a new set of tunnels under the river from Hoyt-Schermerhorn to the bellmouths at Whitehall. Nassau/4th service is thus isolated from Broadway/Fulton, allowing for both to run into Brooklyn at 30ish tph. Off the bat, there's the fact that SAS Phase 4 probably will not be built within our lifetimes. I can guarantee you that Fulton will reach its breaking point before then. I agree that connecting 8th to Fulton via these tunnels would be a waste, but a Broadway service is absolutely a defensible choice. The current transfer at Jay is neither a level change nor simple, and the platform at Jay is narrow enough to create harrowing crowding situations even in the off-peak. Moreover, a stopless tunnel from Hoyt to Whitehall -- Court is probably not deep enough to avoid eminent domaining a good number of houses beyond the end of Schermerhorn -- would in all likelihood make up for any time penalties caused by the 's serpentine route through Lower Manhattan, making it a competitive alternative for travelers going as far as Midtown. If we assume 5 minutes from Hoyt to Whitehall, and then current train speeds beyond there, the would take: -15 mins to Canal/Church, vs 13 via -18 mins to Union Square, vs 19 via to -22 mins to Herald Square, vs 23 via to -25 mins to Times Square, vs 22 via So maybe more competitive than you think... I just did the Brighton to IRT transfer. Sure, it's not perfect, but it isn't PABT to TSQ. Just a few weird jogs. And while South Brooklyn riders may be attracted to the easier interchange at Grand, you miss the connection with the Brooklyn IRT itself (which is a tad too far from Fulton for them to be considered to have overlapping service regions, IMO). And while you may be able to suck some riders off buses at Nostrand and Utica with SAS on Fulton Local, you must keep in mind that your SAS service is, well, local -- for its entire route, mind you -- while the are express. Whether that translates into a disparity in travel time remains to be seen, but it is indeed something to keep in mind. I think the real flaw with SAS to Fulton is the fact that such a pattern would completely miss serving many high-density areas in Brooklyn. As much as I believe that Fulton deserves more service, a cursory glance at a population map shows that the real areas of density outside of the Jamaica/Canarsie corridors are in Sunset Park, along the edges (especially the south one) of Prospect Park, and along Eastern Parkway. While SAS/Fulton would serve the latter area well, residents of the former two would be forced to continue using the Brooklyn IRT, or (ab)use the as bridge services even moreso than they do today. Sending SAS via the Manhattan Bridge in the place of the (which would take over Williamsburg, I guess) or via Nassau to 4th Local allows single transfer access to all of those areas, and allows SAS to access a greater spread of destinations than it would have along Fulton. I also think there's something to be said for the fact that both of those options would obviate the need to built out all of Phase 4, a not insignificant cost and time saving in our current construction environment.
  14. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    If it weren’t for the fact that the is the only easy way of adding tph to Fulton, I’d be keeping it and extending the . But connecting the Whitehall provisions with A1/2 near Hoyt Schermerhorn is a relatively simple and merge-free means of getting Fulton the service levels it deserves. The whole or now thing is my attempt at creating a service to replace the on 4th. A extension seems unwise given the length of the route that’d create, thus the most sensical option is the addition of a service ending on Nassau from the south. While Chambers allows for such termination in its current configuration, its operation at more than 6 or 7 tph (levels too low for 4th local, even though the line is just a shuttle to various transfer points) would create an operational nightmare, thus the creation of a new terminal along Nassau is necessary. I suggested Essex solely because it’s already almost configured for terminal operation on the middle track, and it provides connection the the and . The resulting service pattern (assuming a minimum of deinterlining is conducted to capture capacity on 8th ave) would be something like the following: as today via QB local/53/8th exp/Fulton exp to Lefferts as today 168 to WTC via 8th/CPW local. as today as today as today via 63; all else normal 96 to CI via Sea Beach as today Astoria to Euclid via Fulton local merged into as today; extended to 9th ave or Bay Pkwy rush hours Brown Essex to 95
  15. RR503

    Watered down Freedom Ticket

    @checkmatechamp13 asked whether or not AT would include express bus access. It won’t. Local/SBS/Subway/LIRR only.

×

Important Information

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