RR503

Trying to imagine running express-on-local with the 's tendency to run pairwise during PM rushes...

On 1/1/2020 at 12:10 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If you redid the 36th junction to reroute locals onto West End, then what would replace the current Bay Ridge-bound local service at 45th and 53rd?

As mentioned in my post, there are provisions that exist for switches south of 36 — you’d use that.

5 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

West End line riders will fight tooth and nail over the prospect of rerouting their service to the Montague Tunnel. Even during the period when the West End train was the only one that could access Stillwell Ave due to terminal reconstruction - 2002-04 - the  ran via the tunnel only during late nights and weekends. This is also why the  was cut in 2010. There was very little demand for a direct West End-Montague train. And it’s not really necessary to do one if DeKalb is deinterlined. The  is currently on its own tracks in Brooklyn, except during late nights when both the  and  also run local in Brooklyn. That doesn’t need to change if the  is rerouted to Astoria. 38th Street Yard in Brooklyn can be used as a revenue service storage yard for the  with deadheading to Coney Island Yard for maintenance. This is similar to how the  has Fresh Pond Yard for storage and deadheads to East New York Yard for maintenance.

38th would certainly help facilitate an Astoria-Bay Ridge , but the merge interaction creates between yard runs and s presents a non trivial constraint in service. Whether or not that justifies a different service pattern is somewhat a subjective question given our inability to quantify the issue, but it’s definitely worth considering. Also would be interested to know how much space we could get in 38th, what with MOW’s presence always expanding. 

West End riders would certainly not like losing direct Bridge access, but this isn’t something where they just lose. 2-3 minute peak headways would be appreciated by riders, as would the potential for express service. Part of the reason that this plan has some merit is because you can create this very tradeoff: they lose bridge access, but they gain something else. And as noted above, this is just adding a cross platform transfer. 

9 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Did they ever do a similar report on say, 34th or 11th St?

There’s one in the pipeline, IINM. Unsure whether it’ll be made public. 

This report, which came out yesterday, has some really interesting discussion of a lot of the issues we've discussed here previously. Highly recommend giving it a read. 

https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-12/MTA NYCT Subway Speed and Capacity Review_Final Report.pdf

Some key takeaways in my eyes:

- NYCT acknowledges the operational issues at Nostrand/142/149, and acknowledges the need to make investments/routing changes

- NYCT acknowledges R68 propulsion issues (and also gives a bunch of really interesting data on pre- and post-field shunting elimination acceleration profiles for various car classes)

- Lots of good stuff on timer/speed sign visibility

- Disappointing lack of analysis of dwell time issues and off peak service problems

- Super interesting applications of axle counters to shorten fixed dwells at force and lock controlled interlockings

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I do have some concerns about deinterlining DeKalb. I’ll get to those in a moment. Let me say that my preference for DeKalb is to run the  via Sea Beach (with expanded service hours of course) and the  via the Brighton express tracks, extend the  part time to Bay Ridge and leave the other lines as is. This is because I’ve seen it said in many places that Brighton riders have a much stronger preference for Broadway over 6th Avenue and vice versa for Southwest Brooklyn (Sea Beach/West End). 

With you up to the  extension. I totally agree that Bay Ridge needs more service, but unless we can demonstrate that  would, say, reduce  crowding significantly, I'd prefer a conflict-eliminating  extension rather than a conflict-creating . 

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

FIguring out what to do with the local trains is the hardest aspect of DeKalb deinterlining.  Ideally, we'd just route all  trains from Astoria to Bay RIdge and be done, but without  a proper yard we have to think out of the box.  

One interesting suggestion I've seen is using the switch provisions south of 36th to route express trains to Bay Ridge, with all locals to West End. You'd get rid of 4th Express-Bridge service to West End, but would make up for the loss in massively increased service frequencies and a simpler, less geometrically fraught merge at 36 St. This'd also provide you with the frequency required to do some sort of West End express from 9th to Bay Parkway, provided you work out the scheduling and switch issues there (don't want another Parkchester!). 

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

Is it OK to still bring QB trains onto the Broadway BMT? 

I personally prioritize getting rid of operations through the 11 St cut out of proportion to that track's service impact because getting rid of it allows you to unlock the full potential of 63, and thus increase capacity to Queens by ~15tph. Would keep that proposal. 

8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

 runs express south of 50th via new switches (late night  service still stops at 23rd and Spring)

 same as today

 same as today

 Forest Hills-WTC via QBL local, 53rd and 8th local (weekdays only except late nights)

 via 63rd (runs to Forest Hills all times except late nights)

Perhaps the point here is minimum impact, but I'd _strongly_ caution you against not deinterlining 59/creating a 59-esque situation at 36 St. 59 is undoubtedly among the hardest merges in the system to operate -- so much so that it's the point from which the entire IND is scheduled. 36 St, which would essentially be 59 St but with a lot more trains, would promise to be an ops disaster if 59 is any guide. Given that CPW can be done with a max addition of a cross platform xfer, and that doing a 59 pattern in Queens also likely would add to express loads given destination parity btwn expresses and locals, I really think a 53/63 exp/local pairing is the way to go.

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Where do you be getting these diagrams from?

I make them with a friend's code in R, the free stats software. DM me if you're interested in a copy. 

14 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

@RR503, btw, the  combined actually maintain 18 tph southbound in the AM peak (11 tph on the  and 7 tph on the ), not 15 tph. Some improvements still should be made, though.

Scheduled throughput southbound at 59 St (where trains enter the CBD), see the 8-9AM time slot:

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Although RR503 is entirely correct in pointing out the problem with the IND part of the equation. Gotta remember that for many years there was a line east of the Concourse line that carried a share of that ridership that was pushed over to the IND after it shut down. I wonder if bringing back an 8th Avenue addition to the Concourse line would make a difference, too. As it stands the and mirror each other from Grand Street to Bedford Park Blvd so if something goes wrong on that stretch the gets the best treatment while the is an afterthought. The difference between myself and many other posters is that I rely on personal experience and what I was taught back then. I remember when my mentors came to a few of us hourly folks and said that the powers that be learned a new word,  throughput,  which would supposedly improve our lives in RTO. Before I retired they would tease me about how much my Transit life had improved. Remember that I started out with older SMEE equipment,  moved on to Redbirds,  R62A, and finally R142. New signal system,  ATS, what have you.  Running time increased from Dyre to Bowling Green on my old interval by 8 minutes . My rabbi and his associates created a job that they knew would keep me from getting in trouble with management. I have touched base this week with many of my instructors and colleagues who share some of my sentiments. One person reminded me of the day I announced my retirement plan to him and a few other superintendents while we were standing in front of the Transit building at 130 Livingston. A line supervisor, a school car superintendent,  a deputy and a young man brought over from the LIRR. I looked at the LIRR recruit and felt saddened.  I thought it looked bad that the NYCT had to go outside of the immediate agency to find someone who would buy into the program. RTO supervisors banished to the SIR  or transferred between divisions was not a good look,  at least to me and the supervision that I personally knew . Charts,  graphs, and position papers do have a place in RTO Planning but in my opinion knowledgeable people are worth more.  My opinion.  Carry on. 

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. Systems knowledge is good. Data and reports are also good, and are completely necessary to ensure that issues of perception are countervailed appropriately. What NYCT needs and currently lacks is a structure that has the critical thinking skills and system knowledge to quickly identify service issues, but also the analytical capabilities to place that issue in systemic context, avoiding the previously common problem where, euh, attentive supervisors just made changes to their home lines external to system process.

FWIW, I think it's worth complicating the "they did all these things and service got...worse" narrative. Most of the runtime increase you observe came to pass to combat some very real safety deficiencies in the signal system. Some of the finer points of that issue are certainly worth debating -- whether we should have spent the money to add signals to combat capacity losses, whether we should have spent more to properly mod interlocking areas, etc -- but I certainly don't think seeing that slowdown as an endogenous process is totally right. There are a TON of areas where NYCT could improve/has been regressing, but the causations behind those issues aren't just "we need to be a lot better at system management/managerial culture" (which we do, but you get my point). 

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Just re-read this whole thread and it amazes me that not one person sees the obvious solution ( except me ) while the rah- rah folks debate Concourse, Woodlawn, Dyre, Pelham. Meanwhile the people you're counting on to alleviate this mess somewhat have ignored your problems as if they don't exist. It always appeared to me that the mindset of the folks in charge was that Concourse ridership was west side vs Jerome meant east side. That may be where the trains were heading but it ignored the desires of the individual ridership.  As if there were no options and everything was an absolute. Remember that line that ran from the Bronx to City Hall or Chatham Square ? Cut back to 149th St-3rd Ave at the Hub ? Then the new edition of the same agency proposed eliminating a portion of the line in the Bronx. Same agency that is doing a piecemeal replacement for a short segment of a line that should be 100% focused on the Bronx, IMO. Meanwhile that same master plan adds a somewhat useless turn westward in Manhattan while ignoring everything problematic that this thread has pointed out.  Maybe you Concourse/ Jerome folks are an afterthought or taken for granted ? Maybe the ire of the Bronx posters should be directed at the and the politicians who control the agency.  BTW the running time from Woodlawn to 149th-GC used to be 18-20 minutes with the old equipment. I'll let jc or I run trains correct me 'cause I don't believe any of that Trip Planner BS. That's my rant on the subject. Agree or not. It's okay with me. Carry on.

What is this “obvious solution” you speak of? To me, the obvious in the case of the individually is just improving current service given the self-evident flaws of skip stop on a line with significant intra-corridor ridership, the operational issues with running an express via M track, and the fact that a few simple fixes in the 125-161 stretch could save Jerome riders significant amounts of time.

As for the travel demographics of Concourse/Jerome in general, the actual destinations of real commuters on the line are a lot more central in midtown than one would imagine given the  bias of corridor ridership. This should indicate two things to us armchair analysts: the  do a disproportionately poor job of serving core-bound corridor riders, and that the greatest benefit to corridor riders who are traveling beyond the Bronx (ie the folks that this  would target) would likely come from service expansions on the IND, given its centrality to Midtown destinations and access to midtown crosstown service in the  at 7/53. Things like bumping service on the  from 15 to 20tph, reviewing service patterns at the 59 St interlocking, and perhaps considering adds to the  (which also peak at 15tph combined southbound) to increase network-level gains for Concourse/Jerome riders are all operationally neutral or positive interventions that would, ya know, serve real markets. And all of this could be furthered with station access interventions, whether that be reopening closed entrances or modifying bus service to help people move around the Concourse/Jerome corridor’s many hills. Pie in the sky? Perhaps. A set of investments that would see extremely high returns on a network scale if implemented? Absolutely. 

The runtime graphs I posted a page or two ago are collected from actual trains; that’s how long things take today. 

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

It's the city's own fault for marketing the subways over the buses.

Nassau had to hire a private company to sell their buses because the MTA are terrible salespeople.

The Circus was started Upstate near Van Cortland and PT Barnum is disappointed. 

On high density corridors like the Lex, words do not describe how better of a fit subways are than buses. Thank GOD we built them.

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

Can't they just make the and Local Lines and the express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

Interlining 125/Lex would be Dekalb but with more merge delays and more capacity loss all to save people 

*checks notes*

A cross platform transfer.

Please, dear god, no. This is like basic level operations analysis: merges along high ridership/throughput corridors should be minimized. 

31 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Because of these switches:

It could be done, and looks like the junction was designed with that service pattern in mind as an option.

As an option, sure, but it would be....VERY unfun to operate. You’d basically be replicating Dekalb Avenue, just this time at higher throughputs next to a high dwell station on a corridor that is inarguably is the most essential to the function of the subway. A recipe for operational paralysis, in other words. I think it’s best to learn to manage dwell times at 125 (and across the corridor as a whole) better. 

The other issue here that I noted before is that running an express from Burnside to 149 would mean trains scheduled on a 4 minute headway from Burnside would end up at 149 almost at the exact same time, mucking up the merge between each other/them with the . You could schedule unevenly in the north, but then one will be riding the other’s tail through a meh signal system down from Woodlawn, or extend the express segment further north but then risk making the express catchment exceedingly small. 

37 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

No it doesn't. I've used it so I know... Additionally, that isn't the only part of peoples' commutes, so a true express would be great.

It's more like 30mins from Mosholu to 125 during the peak. (Both below charts generated using realtime data, so all runtimes are real trains)

...but the area in which trains are losing the most time rel. to the baseline midday runtime is the 161-125, ie the portion of the route where express service will help the least. 80/20 rule would suggest better operating the merge there, better controlling dwell times and adjusting speed restrictions esp. now that that area is in the queue for CBTC is the best way to improve Jerome rider experience. 

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

 

Sorry. You'd either have n/b  trains skip 135, or you'd rebuild 135 to a 3 track/2 platform station with s in the middle, or you'd just all out grade separate the area potentially using the middle track as someone else suggested. 

Just now, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 What are your thoughts on constructing a station at 103/CPW on the ?

Would be nice for connectivity, I guess, but would slam the  even moreso than today. Dunno if it should be pursued. 

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

I agree. What do you think the solution with the schedules? Actually changing schedules to reflect reality would require adjusting times throughout the line, requiring changes to essentially every other line since they are so fragile. 

I think that's exactly what should be done, but only after runtimes are stable (ie no more SPEED projects in the pipeline). I also think that the scheduled runtimes should be somewhat more aggressive than they are today so that the incentive to run a tight ship is maximized. 

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Have car maintainers ever worked overnight in NYC?

Unsure. I think some definitely do, it's just that a lot of mx activity happens during the peak. 

Just now, Union Tpke said:

The question is, do we have enough equipment to run the  and  at reasonable frequencies? Off-peak. Yes. Peak. I don't think so.

Eh. If we kept some 32s/cut out some of the ridiculous runtime adds implemented in peak hour schedules, we may have. Foreign systems also have much lower spare factors than do we largely because their car maintainers work overnight rather than during the peak, a practice whose adoption could free up a significant portion of the fleet for service.

3 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

There have Ben times when i was working the 5, Ill leave Franklin only to get held at the junction so a bum as  that entered the station after i left can cross ahead of me! smh!

Classic. That area is scheduled like garbage too -- they fully have s and s going through within 30s of each other.

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

While the  won't help pull some loads off the  all the way, it will certainly make it alot more attractive to Grand Concourse local stops, especially for Yankee Stadium. I feel like the  to Bedford Park in the PM ends far too early, as during baseball season, trains are slammed to the core. Yet the 's only solution is to have that  Express cross over to local for 161 (after bypassing 155 on the express) before crossing back to express. Horrible.

I think the  could help a lot -- it has cross platform transfers with the  and  into Midtown, after all. Just a question of getting everybody's frequencies to a level at which CPW is attractive. 

7 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

The gets slammed in the peak direction. The  serves riders better south of Burnside, but the and combined serves riders better north of Tremont, but only if you have the flexibility to take either line on both ends of your journey.

The  is so bad during rushes that a significant number of people ride to Tremont or Fordham and then cross over to the downtown for access to local stops. That's...embarrassing.

On the point of loading guidelines more broadly, they're an objectively terrible way of structuring service. In a networked system, the interactions between lines make things like transfer times and turnover and network load balance equally salient variables even to cost considerations (not that we should be structuring service around costs alone, but to speak the language of the agency...) as is crowding. Routes that have high turnover -- like the  -- should get more service as a reduction in their headway shortens transfers of more high-density trip types, making them more attractive and increasing revenue proportionally more, etc. 

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

If you want to deal with issues with the , there are the following:

• Slow speeds enter Woodlawn-track layout
• 149th Street Jct.-you could end the  merge
• Variations in operation between T/Os - how they take timers
• Crowding at 59th
• Dwells at Grand Central
• Gap Fillers at Union Square
• Slow speeds in Lower Manhattan-close stop spacing and timers
• Merges at Bowling Green with short-turn s
• Nostrand Junction
• Utica -fumigation-supposedly ended

@RR503 Any others that I am missing?

- The issues at Union Square are equally bad in both directions. S/b it's gap fillers causing long dwells as you've identified; n/b it's terrible passenger flow. 

- The BG terminal is bad in both directions as well -- s/b you get hit with fumigation delays, n/b with the merge. 

- 3 track from Franklin to Borough Hall is a hornets nest of 1 shot GTs. You note the variability problem, but I think that stretch is worth highlighting independently

- 125 St is chaos -- long dwells, 10mph 1 shot enforced leaving speed nb. It's not constraining given how much of a dumpster fire the core section of Lex is, but it certainly contributes to lengthened peak-hour runtimes. 

35 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Yeah!!!!! This is pretty much accurate. The Gap Fillers are really not a big issue thou........... Unless a T/O Decides he wanna wrap it up and CHOW!!!!!

Nostrand Junction is not a big Issue for the  either because it doesn't have to wait for anybody to get past... Normally the would stop the  and let a  go!.. that way the following  &  goes thru. But sometimes they even screw that up!

I've noticed that frequently, a  will get held for a  or  crossing in front, which in turn plugs a  coming downhill into Franklin. No direct crossing interaction, but the cascading effect certainly hurts s.

On the question of  service more generally, I tend to say no. Assuming the proposal are express trips from 149 to Burnside, you first run into the issue of merge delays. Skipping 5 stops will save you 2.5-3.5 minutes, or almost a full  headway...which means you arrive at Burnside at about the same time as your leader. Then what? Somebody is getting a merge delay, or you extend the express segment of the  even further north, reducing its potential catchment and thus the case for express service, etc.

As I see others have noted, there's equally an issue of yard access. M track on Jerome gets a *lot* of use in this capacity. Again, assuming this is just an express as far as Burnside, you'd avoid put ins in the AM around BPB, but the first Burnside drop out arrives at Burnside before 9 AM! You're either going to have to move it to the local (running the risk of fumigation delays), keep the set in service (what I would do), or end express service quite early. Tractable, but again, something to think about. 

There's finally a load balance argument.  would undoubtedly attract riders from the  which we...really don't want to be doing, given Lex loads. 

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Trains used to go 60 on Queens Boulevard. Do you think it is worth trying to get trains to go back up to that speed in areas like Woodhaven?

CBTC will certainly enable it; I’d love to see it happen. Just a question of reprogramming limits in the CBTC software. 

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Or, in areas with less frequent service, or areas that due to branching that won't realistically run 30 TPH, let's say for the sake of argument Dyre Avenue or the Rockaways, do you think that it would make sense to have faster speeds with longer control lines?

I would say yes, though by and large this is what was done to begin with, even in the mod effort (with some exceptions, ofc). It makes little sense to me to sacrifice speed for capacity in areas that don’t need capacity. 

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Are there any places in the system where adding a middle track for junction fluidity could help?

If we could figure out a way to rebuild 135 so that nb  trains could hold short of the junction on the spur for a crossing move before proceeding through, that'd be great. 

5 hours ago, Lex said:

The closest to it I'd remotely push for is having peak  service skip 138th Street via the main tracks so additional  trains can run north of 149th Street (and to avoid having southbound trains do the nonsense currently done, which is performed at a snail's pace, to boot).

s skipping 138 on the middle is really important for junction fluidity at 149. Having s plugged behind s s l o w l y merging in front from the connector tracks in the AM/diverging s l o w l y and potentially getting plugged by s in the PM wouldn't do anything good for Lex capacity. 

34 minutes ago, Eric B said:

It's not capacity's sake, it's because it's a steep hill, and would be easy to reach dangerous speeds and lose control, so they enforce a maximum speed (the same with river tubes).

A train blasting into Church at 60 would be surprising but not inherently unsafe if control lines were designed for that speed. It’s just that doing so is really bad for capacity. Allowing trains to run wild in river tubes or on long downhills such as this at times does not actually produce speeds in excess of safe speeds around curves etc. What it _does_ do is force signal engineers to design half mile long control lines to account for greatly increased stopping distances, which would in turn reduce line capacity through greater train separation (esp around stations) and forced increase use of station time. This is why, for example, A4 on CPW has GTs starting at 86 St rather than just before the curve at 116. Of course, there are also thousands of cases where allowing speeds greater than x does create a geometry risk of some sort, but anecdotally those curves are superelevated such that they’d be good for speeds much higher than what exists currently. This article on the original IND signal system gives a good overview. 

https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1932/New Eighth Avenue Subway- Signaling and Interlocking in New York City.pdf#page= https://www.jonroma.net/media/signaling/railway-signaling/1932/New Eighth Avenue Subway- Signaling and Interlocking in New York City.pdf#page=5

53 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Were they hoping to make up for it by making the express alignment geometrically straighter between stations?

I mean, yes? I don’t think they necessarily saw the enforced slow speeds as being something that necessarily had to be made up for, they just wanted to maximize the impact of the express run (which they most certainly did — on a minutes saved/stops skipped basis, Culver is one of the most efficient express runs in the system). 

1 minute ago, subway4832 said:

Its borderline depressing of how slow it is, not so much the Bergen-7th Ave portion, but the 7th Avenue to Church segment, which is neutered with timers all the way down. Any reason why that section is so slow? Considering its downhill most of the way?

GT35s (installed for capacity’s sake given the downhill) will do that to speeds. Fun fact, though: the original IND signaling was timed even slower — 30mph.

41 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

You have got to be kidding me...

There is no local  or  service in either direction between Queens Plaza & Jackson Hts-Roosevelt Av so NYPD & EMS can respond to a person who was struck by a train at 46 St.

This is unbelievable how? 46 St is between those 2 stations, you need to shut off power on multiple tracks to deal with 12-9s generally, and the shortest possible diversion is from...Queens Plaza to Roosevelt.  

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

"Inter-agency" probably should just be replaced with "agency", and by agency politics I mean the LIRR's single-minded focus on being the Manhattan and Ronkonkoma Railroad. The Atlantic Ticket was an extremely tepid toe dip and the toe wasn't even fully wet.

Honestly, the "construction costs" canary WRT commuter rail is now dumb now that East Side Access has blown a Capital-Plan-sized hole in that. Had we known what we were getting into, we probably either wouldn't have built it at all or we would've built something else entirely. Chris Christie's main failing was that there was no plan B for ARC at the time, but ARC would've also probably similarly ballooned in cost.

Given that even MNR-LIRR relationships are fraught, and the mix of electrification systems (is the over/under running shoe on the M8s switched between the types of third rail today?), I believe the best way to do it would be to make it so that each system's regionalization is not dependent on a partner agency.

I really don't think we need to be so beholden to interagency cooperation issues, especially when the two railroads in question are under a single organizational umbrella and are about to see large parts of their operation merged as a part of this 'Transformation Plan.' The infrastructure issues here are trivial -- underrunning to overruning on the M8 requires zero intervention from the engineer, as the train senses the type of electrification automatically -- and the bureaucratic issues boil down to the equally tractable issue of installing management teams at the two agencies who are willing to pursue interoperability and enmeshed operations. 

As for the issue of construction costs...I do not see your point? If things were cheaper to build, we would have the capacity to build more things from the various wishlists. This observation is well grounded in the history of the various expansion projects.

50 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What about PATH to Jamaica via the Atlantic branch?

I'd personally love to see PATH be integrated into the subway proper -- one of the great failures of our time, IMO, was Path-Lex.