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

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

RR503 last won the day on August 11

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,685 Excellent

5 Followers

About RR503

  • Rank
    Oink

Profile Information

  • Location
    Drainage ditch

Recent Profile Visitors

2,083 profile views
  1. RR503

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Concourse and Wash Heights are both busy enough to warrant full CPW exp/local service -- especially given that Concourse is the only Lex relief corridor. I'd send 1 CPW local service to BPB at 10-15 tph, and one to 168 at 15-20, and then split CPW exp evenly between the two. Yes, this causes some reverse branching in the reverse-peak direction, but I'm willing to pay that price for full capacity. I also don't like the pairing of CPW local with 6th Ave and CPW exp with 8th exp. 8th exp will always be the more capable track pair, given that its local counterpart is limited by the WTC terminal. Thus, given the size and importance of the Queens market, I'd argue that 8th exp should be paired with 53, and local with CPW local. Now, to the meat of the matter: the Canal flip. Really, spending a cool billion to obviate a cross platform transfer strikes me as wasteful. The only people it truly benefits are SAS riders who are largely Midtown bound. Some do work further south, yes, but the Financial District is projected to lose employment share over the long run as the age of area building stock and the availability of newer alternatives push more tenants north. My objection here is a bit moot, given that this whole exercise is centered around the assumption that such a plan would be implemented -- but I'd like it registered anyway. In terms of your Brooklyn proposals, I again see a couple issues. FF will in all likelihood ease the capacity issues at Dekalb by allowing the pre-identification of trains, so I think in this world those homeball holds can be safely said to be a thing of the past. Thus, Dekalb deinterlining would in all likelihood have an only marginal capacity impact -- though there is absolutely still a reliability argument to be made there. If I were to deinterline, though, I would not pursue it as you've laid out. Other posters have shown why making Crosstown the Brighton Local is a bad idea (I'd just reconfigure Prospect Park to make it a viable terminal), but beyond that, I'd argue that Broadway/Lower Manhattan service shouldn't be kept on 4th. Instead, I'd spend the Canal Flip money on building a tunnel from Whitehall to Hoyt Schermerhorn while sending Nassau trains (which are better at serving Lower Manhattan/transfer points therein than Broadway Local) to 4th Local. Now, with that 4th Local capacity, I wouldn't pursue the pattern you've laid out. Your plan basically makes that line's local tracks into the primary service route, despite the fact that ridership and speed can be better captured with the express. I'd thus leave Sea Beach and West End as branches of the express, sending all locals to Bay Ridge. With that as a given, I disagree with the way you've assigned priority between WE and SB. If I had to choose one to receive more throughput and express service, I'd choose West End, given that its express tracks have legit stations along them, and that the 62nd st transfer allows its expresses to act as a quasi-express service for Sea Beach riders. We then arrive at SAS. Few here would disagree with the opinion that the corridor needs relief -- I certainly do not. That said, the way SAS has been designed locks in reverse branching and capacity restriction. Thus, unless the north and south ends are separated into distinct track pairs, I don't think it should be built beyond Phase 2. Regardless, if the line is built out, I see the capacity at its southern end as usable in two ways: for integration into the BMT Southern Division (which provides transfers to most other lines in BK) via either Nassau or the Manhattan Bridge, or for an extension to Staten Island. Fulton connection just further isolates two transfer-poor lines -- which is why I prefer to head that way. A (tangentially) related note about CBTC: the map above shows CBTC installs in the 10 years of the FF plan. This does not mean that CBTC installs will be limited to just those lines -- indeed, Byford himself has said that (provided funding) the remainder of the network would get CBTC in the years following the end of FF.
  2. Well here ya have it — caprine urbexers.
  3. RR503

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    Solid State Interlocking — upgrading dem vacuum tubes to CBTC compatibility. That’s why you see the new signals in that area.
  4. RR503

    R179 Discussion Thread

    I had heard the same for that order, but wondered what had changed since the 156s came in on flatcars. Do you know anything about that order?
  5. RR503

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Any idea why they didn't opt for the rail routing? Cost? Class 1s not wanting to accept liability (which, I guess, is also cost)?
  6. RR503

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    Not exactly. They did that because they needed all trains to be off the local tracks in whatever direction at W4. On 8th, that's easy -- via express. On 6th, the Chrystie-induced lack of a B1/B3 crossover south of W4 disallows simply sending the via 6th Express, so while the could remain normal, the was forced over to 8th -- onto 8th express, which would then carry and trains. In clear water running, those 4 would all fit (8+6+5+5 = 24, which is <30), but the fact that 8th express was being flagged means that there only was 15-16tph to go around. Thus, one line had to be cut. The simplest line to cut -- given that it doesn't serve Brooklyn -- is the , so they sent that to Whitehall via 63rd, solving the 4 lines on 8th exp issue while also adding back service at 63rd St stations which were losing the to 53/8th that weekend. Finally, to compensate for the loss of the on 53rd, trains in the direction unaffected by W4 work were sent that way -- which, I believe, also had to do with the fact that under such a plan, both tracks at 57 would then be open for ESI work.
  7. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    City Hall lower is basically just a relay terminal, so using FHills as a benchmark, I'd say somewhere in the 18-22 tph range. Ocean Parkway's switches are pretty set back and (IIRC) D10. So I'd say 12tph, though that is truly a spitball number.
  8. RR503

    Planned Subway Service Changes

    Yes. They're clamped to normal until the SSI cutover is finished. Have been since the weekends IIRC.
  9. Yes. The rail line goes to the DSNY trash transload down by Fresh Kills. If you see orange containers on CSX trains, that's where they're from. Insofar as rail service to Matrix, I'm almost 100% sure the park won't have a spur -- though it's likely the tenants will use intermodal terminals in NJ in some capacity. A tad of a shame, given that the first plan for the site was a Brooklyn Brewery facility which would have used plenty of rail directly.
  10. RR503

    SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

    GO is single track from Bway Jct to Canarsie. vs makes no difference.
  11. I highly doubt that any such crisis will come to pass. Politicians are stupid, sure, but not suicidal enough to try to drastically cut service in a time of metropolitan prosperity.
  12. Yup. Somebody probably dropped their donut — I mean plywood.
  13. It's a pilot program -- I think the agency needs to ascertain that superiority before they expand to the whole system.
  14. RR503

    Recent news

    This is the thing, though -- an optimized version of our transit system could actually handle a lot more development within its current service area -- it's just housing politics won't let it. In 1954, before we had Chrystie and 63rd (excluding the 3rd ave el), we ran nearly 500 trains per hour into the core. Today, that's more like 373 (including the new infrastructure). The issue here is thus one of us emphasizing development/ridership along a few corridors (Lex, QB, IRT West Side) while letting the rest of the system lie fallow. We've stopped seeing the system as a network, and more as a collection of lines. There is no thought given to the potential of parallel corridors to relieve each other, and no thought given to increasing capacity even if it inconveniences people. That, along with the sorry state of our operating environment, is what is killing this city -- not ridership.
  15. RR503

    Recent news

    Not to stray too off topic, but New York's housing crisis has been a long time coming, and I largely blame transit for that. While we can argue over the details/implications of rent regulation and public housing, the reality is that the area of NYC that can be truly considered viable for residential development hasn't expanded since the Queens Boulevard line was opened. Since that era, New York's planning (granted, through a combination of choice and financial fiat) has adopted a highly core-centric focus, all but abdicating responsibility to shape the futures of transportationally 'locked' areas. This has manifested itself in the fetishization of SAS and ESA above all else, the ignorance of transit deserts, and even the way we structure service and determine its frequency. In turn, this means that while we've developed a strong core, we have given it very little room to grow -- causing massive upwards pressure on real estate prices as New York's economy has soared. Yes, there are accessible areas that haven't reached full potential yet, but to expect hundreds of thousands of housing units to spring out of such pockets is both politically unlikely and economically inadvisable, given that it just reinforces the current trend. So while subways and buses need more core trunk capacity, they equally need better reach -- the core-serving SAS must be paired with an equivalent greenfield-capturing expansion.

×

Important Information

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