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

    2,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    101

Everything posted by RR503

  1. Yes, though the lack of advisory on that makes me think I may have wrong info. Edit: seems I do. My apologies!
  2. https://new.mta.info/system_modernization/138stnorth Structural stuff, in short. It'll certainly be interesting to see what happens. I for one am not optimistic about this GO's performance.
  3. Before they did this, they had a 30 min gap in Manhattan-bound service between the last and the first because the -- which used to reduce that gap to 20 -- is at 96 now. Somehow wasn't caught when they did the original schedule. Glad to see they're fixing it.
  4. There are switches north of 138 that allow s to use the connection to the LL while skipping 138. So yes, it'll be a two track op there for a while -- first time this has been the case in a long, long time.
  5. I mean, you can easily accomplish the same approximate connectivity by making the Bay Ridge service be Essex Middle-95 via Nassau, Montague, 4th local. Or by transferring to Culver.
  6. Dunno if this is as true as railfan lore would suggest it is. There’s a considerable distance where the grade is constant beyond the crossover, and as I’m sure you know installation on a curve isn’t an issue. If you just move the tower and/or the crossover, you’re golden. In a similar vein to @Trainmaster5’s post above, I’d suggest that yards may be where we face the most complexity in a 10 car plan. ENY, Canarsie and FPY are all quite space constrained, and with everything running in 5 car links these days, moving away from the train lengths for which those yards are optimized would likely increase operational complexity while also reducing yard capacity. These issues aren’t necessarily insurmountable (I’m very much of the opinion that NYCT should at the very least option the land around ENY before its too late), but are certainly worth thinking about.
  7. The metal rain, though, is much more a function of maintenance than it is of viaduct design. I don't think platform extensions would have much of an impact on the issue. As you know, I generally share your skepticism on the quality of MTA work, but on the structural stuff they seem to have gone in the opposite direction from skimping: literally everything they've done these days has been overbuilt or overcomplicated to some degree.
  8. I don't think I agree. Portions of West End are perhaps more awkwardly positioned relative to the grid than is Broadway, and they lengthened platforms no problem there. Same goes for the IRT els in the Bronx, and the portions of Culver where McDonald forms a barrier between different grid orientations. I really don't think this would be nearly the lift that is suggested here, not just because we've done it before, but also because we're generally talking about less than 100' of extension in most cases -- remember that E div platforms were built for 8x67' sets of BMT standards.
  9. Yes, the idea is that you'd spend the $$$ to extend them. Certainly would be less than a new tunnel.
  10. Would be a good time to extend the up 10th to at least 42 to help spread the coming HY crowds. Midtown platforms are packed as is, and adding people doing contraflow will be a...lovely time.
  11. I neither think that WMATA is a good example of this given how fraught DC governance is in general, nor do I think that that system is uniquely bad. Let's not forget that WMATA was a relatively well managed system by American standards until the 2009 accident. As for Williamsburg, I totally agree that in the long term we need more capacity/more housing in those areas, but it's equally important not to lose sight of just how far below capacity existing lines are. The runs 20x8 and the 21x8. If you move both to 30x10, you've nearly doubled your capacity. Getting the via Bridge would also help unlock potential along the Jamaica Ave section of the .
  12. Here's how you make that work: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0967070X9500022I Why would you not just do 6th Ave express to Williamsburg Bridge? Keeps costs to only lolzy levels.
  13. S/b s diverge at the top arrow, run along the track pointed at by the middle arrow (called B lead), and rejoin at the lower arrow.
  14. Likely an equipment transfer to CIY for some sort of maintenance work.
  15. You'd be able to curve over to 3rd if need be, though underpinning won't kill if you just go deep.
  16. ....or that! Wouldn't be surprised if the marginal load movement and time benefits were greater.
  17. Beyond SAS 3 being little more than a pipe dream at this point, I fail to understand why the conclusion from these facts isn't just that we need to redesign SAS 3. It's terrible planning that'll worsen the reliability of the system while adding no capacity. It's connections as you point out are weak; the platform that goes the furthest east is Lex-53, and as you point out that barely gets near the . I'd argue they need to redo the whole thing, placing the route under 3rd north of 34-42, and under 2nd south of there, terminating at Lex-63 for now/in Bronx or in Queens in the future.
  18. Your plans are good, I just wanted to push back here. My apologies for being harsh. The issue with your logic is twofold. Firstly, 36tph is a high throughput, one that is _definitely_ impossible without deinterlining, which is to say your interlining will destroy its enabling condition however limited it may be. Secondly, the existence of more tube capacity doesn't change the basic fact that you're just redistributing throughput inefficiently. As I feel I'm always saying, there are ways to fully utilize Queens crossings with current infrastructure -- appending more infrastructure throws off that balance, and reduces the efficiency of the system as a whole. We should be aiming to maximize that efficiency. If we can have a 4 track SAS, we sure as hell can have a new 2 track tunnel to Queens.
  19. If we spend 10 billion (or whatever that'll cost) building a subway line, we should be making damn sure we get as much bang for our buck as is possible. SAS 3 adds *zero* new capacity to the system; it needs to be redesigned to make sense.
  20. They did just that at BG. Unsure as to exactly how the GOs panned out, but it's doable. Absolutely. There's a good number of folks who do to [some other Brooklyn line]; if you can combine better SAS frequencies with deinterlining at 34 and, potentially, Dekalb and the inherently more efficient Manhattan Bridge route, you'd be able to make an impact.
  21. There was a study of this sort done for Lex-53 in the ‘80s. I believe @Union Tpke has a copy. This is definitely something that should be looked into as Midtown East gets even bigger, as well as the 59-63 link because that’s two free platforms right there.
  22. This is a pretty terrible idea. Let me say it again: a properly designed network with current infrastructure would fill _all_ capacity in existing Queens tunnels. The SAS/63 interlining is bad enough from an ops/capacity perspective. Adding more jury rigged connections into the rest of the tunnel system? Please, dear god, no. Queens needs more cross-river capacity. SAS 3 needs an outlet that doesn’t involve destructive interlining at its northern end. It’s a match made in heaven. (And this is, of course, before we consider the complete impracticality of meshing some sort of connection into tunnel infrastructure.)
  23. No, you're totally right that that's the optimal solution coming south from Harlem/Bronx in the AM peak. It's just that it has knock-on effects when extended to the rest of the line -- in Brooklyn especially, as you point out. That said, the determinants of schedules are much more Rogers/142/149 than they are convenience. At Rogers, s have to be snaked between s and s; at 142, you have to make sure no conflicting moves are scheduled through the plant at the same time, and at 149, you have to take the result of the previous two interactions and make that 'mesh' with merging service. Those three variables are a challenge enough; I doubt all that much thought is given to load balancing after managing them in the peak hours thanks to their complexity.
  24. I left out the because its volumes will exist independent of any deinterlining plan -- if anything, deinterlining will route more pax via local. Agree re: Woodhaven. Having 36 as either an express or as a Dekalb-style station with the on the outside ( would then relay to some tail tracks built beyond) would be nice, too, as it saves you a less-than-optimal diverging move at Queens Plaza and, if you go with the option, sets up a Northern Blvd subway.
  25. To a degree, yes. When you make that chart with the and together, the chart changes, but that's precisely the issue -- the complex interactions the has with the and force it to run irregular headways to maintain a schedule that has any chance of being delivered, which force the to run irregular headways, etc. Because trains don't generally line up into perfect windows between other trains, you're forced to do ugly shit like this, or schedule delays. South of 96 St, the loading difference between and trains is relatively small, and there exists significant intra-segment ridership between 96 and Franklin. Scheduling the unevenly creates load imbalances and increases the chance of dwell congestion related delays as you get further away from 135 St. Outside of Rogers, I don't see scheduling as being nearly as much of a problem as some B div lines, but it's something worth keeping in mind when you try to estimate the impact of interlining on rider-experienced service. Preaching to the choir here. Merges suck, and a delay at one generally leads to delays at the rest. I will say that E180 isn't much of an issue in the AM -- s use B lead to get around s crossing to the middle -- but the rest of them are crap. Rogers especially. But the infrastructure of today is what we're stuck with, so the task at hand is coming up with ways to mitigate these design issues as best we can. New switches and deinterlining at Rogers are at the top of my list for this very reason.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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