RR503

Am I dreaming, or was the storm 3 days ago? Service Change Posted: 01/07/2018 10:46PM Northbound 3 trains are running local from 14 St to 96 St because of weather conditions.

Do R32s run on the on weekends? I was hoping I could catch one tomorrow... Always appreciate the RFW.

Still doesn't change the fact that commuter rail riders know where to be in the train. Unless more than 400 people per train (standing+seated capacity of a pair of M7s) are getting off there, then you're fine. People will either sit in the correct cars, or walk up when they are getting close, or when the conductors tell them to. And if they don't, tough luck. Again though, dwell time is frankly not an issue. It's the configuration of 149th st interlocking that raises more problems. N/B trains will be mostly Hudson line, and s/b will be all Harlem (NH are legally not allowed to make city stops save for Fordham, where they're only allowed to receive n/b, discharge s/b). And yes, woodside is 6, but the two Port Washington Branch tracks are separate beyond Harold (Sunnyside), so the 4 ML tracks don't get relieved of their burden by them (in fact, more ML trains stop at Woodside than any other stop between Penn and Jamaica). But once again. Constricting track capacity near GCT isn't an issue.

Capacity in the tunnels isn't an issue. Remember that GCT was once the nexus of not only a commuter network larger than today's, but also a truly expansive set of long distance trains -- all of which entered and left the terminal via those tunnels. The ~30 tph run by MNR through the tunnels today is child's play -- you can easily have trains stop without causing any issues. Note that such an operational scheme is done by the LIRR (also on a busy, 4 track main) through Queens at Woodside, Forest Hills, and Kew Gardens with no issues. That said, for this to be truly effective, the junction at 149 will have to be rebuilt. IIRC Hudson line trains can only use the westernmost 3 tracks because of the junctions config. For the same reason, the vast majority of trains that would pass the northbound platform at the abandoned 86th street station would be n/b Hudson Line trains. Unless you're OK with infrequent service (and an inbalence in train origin/destination) with more train merging, you'd either have to reconfigure the abandoned platforms to serve all tracks, or reconfigure the interlocking at 149 to better distribute trains. I'd say grade separate it, but that'd be next to impossible without messing up all the overpasses in the area (sinking the lines would be even more difficult -- water table issues + crossing over IRT WPR at 149). I would also suggest reconfiguring the entire thing so that Hudson gets the western 2 tracks, and Harlem/NH gets the eastern 2, but that's giving the most track cap to the least busy line... In short this is a bit of a Gordian knot. In terms of waiting for people to get off, that isn't an issue. Commuters who currently travel to, say, forest hills, know to be in the first or last few cars so they are ready at the platform. Conductors also tell people where they should be on the train so they don't miss the platform. Put differently, I've never heard of an MNR (or LIRR) train having to wait/holding for people to walk up to the correct cars. Yes. Absolutely. Especially if that Freedom Ticket thing goes through. Even the Bronx service increases MNR has been testing lately have been wildly successful. Get a shrink. Both of you.

I understand your point, I just question whether or not adding the stop would be effective in any way. West side is a different matter — 62nd street will attract riders who don’t want to trek over to broadway. Here, where MN and subway run a block apart, and where subway is equally fast as MN, the case for use isn’t nearly as strong.

I understand your point, I just question whether or not adding the stop would be effective in any way. West side is a different matter — 62nd street will attract riders who don’t want to trek over to broadway. Here, where MN and subway run a block apart, and where subway is equally fast as MN, the case for use isn’t nearly as strong.

I’m all for greater utilization of commuter rail within the city, I just don’t think MNR on the east side is the best situation for such an increase. Lex express covers many of these markets with better (frequency wise)/cheaper service, and is actually equally fast when running properly. Yes, in delayed situations it could be faster, but realistically few will give up their 2.75 and then pay another 8.50 for MN to GCT — where in all likelyhood they’ll have to catch another subway. MN also doesn’t technically allow boarding on S/B trains/discharging on n/b ones at 125. Now, if you can show there’s a large enough market for UES-points north travel to justify reopening the station, then this is a whole different matter, but until that happens, I think it’s best to leave those stations dead. PS I know — 1903 — crazy!

There was at one time. Reopening it would cost a bunch though -- what with ADA, and the need for the platforms to handle more than 2 cars. I also doubt it'd do much for the Lex -- 125 to GCT via MNR is = to via Lex. It'd really just help reverse commuters/ppl heading north from the UES. http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/86st.html

Take the to 59 for the , or take the to 51 for the . That said, building an in system xfer from 63 to 59 would do worlds for the system by taking some load off of 53.

....and a step closer to QBL overcrowding. I honestly hope that if this ever goes through (god forbid — what a waste of $$) they do LIRR. At least that’ll strengthen the call for fare uniformity within city limits, and maybe help planners see the value of regional rail in NYC.

Clark st tube shutdown. crews are running trains signed up as s from 241 to FABC, and crews are running trains signed up as s Dyre to SF. This is all so there is no train service in the Clark st tube, which is having Sandy repair work done.

¿Que? The Port Washington Branch’s service levels have nothing to do with trains to Laurelton. Anyway, the lines capacity is limited by single track beyond Great Neck, and the ability of the LIRR to turn trains there. Oh, and did I forget to mention? The LIRR costs 3x subway. You need to reduce fares (and build stations west of Flushing) before you can hope for the LIRR to have any impact on ridership. Happy 2018!!!

Thereby defeating the whole purpose of the bypass? No. Let the RBB go. You have to understand that NYC Subway expansion is an either or proposition, not a both and. Choices have to be made, and unless compared with a subway to City Island or something, the RBB will lose out. D to 96: you posted just before me so can’t quote you. Where is the SAS capacity for both a and a ? That’s removing 30tph from SAS — ie SAS’s entire capacity. Unless there’s a 4 track SAS plan hiding in there, this is impossible. No space for . Building a new line into Queens is nice and all, but sending it’s capacity down a line whose carchement is majority parkland is just bad planning.

I'm trying to not to be so close minded in terms of fiscal/logistical feasibility -- do you want me to?

I'll bite. Comments in red.

Don't you think it's more useful for the city at large to have SAS link with Fulton Local? That gets you much better network integration, and increases service to a underutilized outer boroughs corridor that is poised for growth what with ENY redevelopment etc.

Think law of induced demand. Many, many more people will be poured into overcrowded QB express trains by a subway than by a bus. That’s just the nature of subway service. As for the , I honestly don’t know. The is hemmed in by WTC and the , and the by Stilwell and the . I like your swap idea, but with the mixed frequencies I’m worried that a few times per rush hour, you’ll have express riders having to pass up 2 trains to get the one they want, adding to the already obscene crowding at stations like Roosevelt. Now I have a question: I know most subway lines in the system have he design capabilities to handle more than the proverbial 30tph — I’ve seen articles stating that that close spacing near stations, and the signal timers allow the theoretical operation of trains every 90 seconds or so, and old capacity maps showing 34-36 tph as the design load of many lines in the system. In this day and age, those extra tph would be useful. Ignoring terminal issues and the need for operational margin of error, could service be increased? If not, what has changed?

On the and service change notices, it lists (and also it says it’s running wknd schedule to Essex). On the page, it says to Chambers. On trains, I’ve seen both. (at lease one set of SMEEs said chambers/ on its side, but all the NTTs I saw were , and some of those even said Essex). In stations, to Chambers. In essence, we either have a designation-fluid subway route, or a bunch of really drunk service planners.

The sure, but that isn’t congested. Now explain to me how adding a service that feeds the Queens Boulevard— —corridor will help matters on the . Or don’t. Because it won’t. RBB riders will dump whatever QB local service they’re on ASAP for an express. That’s just how it works.

There are 2 sets now. These pics taken both in last 20 mins from J that is now arriving at crescent

How is it that every discussion on this site turns into an ad-hominemy food fight....

So what is the issue with the 142A fleet? Why is its MDBF so damn low? They’re not *that* different from the 142s, and those have MDBF many time that of the As...

Depends what you mean by "adjust." Care to elaborate?

Thank you!!! That’d be great!

I think Daniel's link covers it. Buuuuut... if you have or train timetables from the early 90s....could I get a peek?