RR503

30 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I think they are actually BANNED from the  according to DJ Hammers. IDK the reason why.

Very interesting. @Dj Hammers care to chime in? 

20 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

That switch could be used. Most s get stuck south of Prospect Park. But only 1-2 s will be north of Prospect Park, and the  already uses Whitehall at full capacity. So you still have to turn it at Lawrence St, as turning at let's say- 57 St, 34 St, will still cause delays. It won't be that much just to turn 1-2  trains around. 

It takes about 4 minutes to fumingate, reverse, and recharge a train, then another to move it through the switch into the clear. Given that in a Manhattan Bridge closure situation you'd probably have at least a few trains from the  and  sharing Montague, you couldn't spare those 5 minutes. It'd make the situation all the more terrible. 

As R42N said, let these cars die in peace on the  

11 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Use the South side via Broadway to 96 St, and reroute and s via Montague if necessary. I'm pretty sure Brighton and the  could handle a few delays to make this happen. And don't say it can't because delays happen every single day. Did anyone literally die because of a delay?

You guys make it sound like the entire Manhattan Bridge will be closed down. We're past that time. Unless it's an absolute emergency, the R32s on the will be just fine.

Imagine a car crash on the lower level roadway, or some NYPD investigation, or a fire, or an electrical outage. Or, hell, just normal Dekalb ave north switch problems. Any of those could shut both sides of the bridge. 

Edit: Daniel beat me to it!

9 minutes ago, R42N said:

Exactly. Once CBTC turns on in Flushing, the Train of Many Colors won’t be operating on the  anymore. 

Back to the Canarise problem, I truly think that if you add a one-seat ride to Manhattan from east of Broadway Junction stops, you wouldn’t need to boost service, as no one would be transferring to the  .

What you could do is suspend the current day  route and turn all  trains into the Canarise/Williamsburg/6th Ave/SAS route. That would be service every 10 minutes, and would still serve 14th Street. (Call it the  or the .

On 11/2/2017 at 8:46 PM, RR503 said:

I still don’t think you all are getting this. 

The Williamsburg Bridge can handle 25 trains per hour. When the  goes down, that’ll be 13 from Metropolitan on the  (all crushloaded with riders from myrtle wyckoff) and 12 from the  as always. Adding  service of any sort would require a reduction in other service. As has been proposed here, all stops on the  east of Bway Jct would see their service halved during rush hours to provide a one seat ride to 6 low ridership stops.

Those  riders can navigate what is really an easy transfer at Bway Jct if they want the  — we don’t need to penalize  riders to aid them in doing that. 

Now let’s get back to the R179. 

And where is this 6th ave capacity coming from? It will have none to spare with more  trains.

Think twice, post once. Please. 

6 minutes ago, R42N said:

Hold on. I understand that the cars can’t fit there, I said I have no worries of running the  there, as there won’t be any instances where it’ll have to go there in a pinch. 

And why would it be “unwise” to run em on the , if that’s exactly where some of them are running right now? 

Personally, I’d like to see them on the Rockaway  with a few sets remaining on the  , like there always has been (even in the summer). If you want to throw them on the  , go ahead. 

If you have no where to put them that needs them, just retire them, or throw 20 on the Rockaway Shuttle, and you’ll free 2 sets of R46’s, which is useful. 

Some issue arises on the Manhattan bridge, causing it to be closed to traffic. A northbound  train is between Prospect Park and Dekalb. Where do you send it? 

For the reasons I stated above. Right now, there is only one or two sets in use on the , minimizing the effect. 

Sure, do that. 2 out of the way lines, and one that gets some down time. 

And they will be needed, at least until the 211s come in, so you can't just trash em. 

3 minutes ago, R42N said:

How many R32’s are expected to last post R179 introduction? You could place 20 R32’s on the Rockaway , and the rest on the line in a case-by-case basis roll. 

I have no concerns about Montague, but I don’t see why they should go through the hassle of switching yards, when you can just keep them on the line. 

Whether or not you have concerns about Montague is inconsequential. The unsubjective reality is that the cars can't fit in there. 

Having R32s -- the system's most unreliable car type -- run on its longest line is just unwise. The havoc those cars could wreak on the flow of traffic scares me. I can almost guarantee 'trains with mechanical problems' every rush hour, causing delays that are sure to cascade across the B division. 

I ask you all once again: why can't we let these cars die in peace on the  or the shuttles? Seems like too much trouble to put them on busy, long, merge filled lines. 

4 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

It could have been Rail-lifted to a nearby yard.

Good thing they got it out. 

Anyone else familiar with the story of the 503?

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=11237

4 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

Hence the push to fix the timers on the bridge to increase throughput.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'd love to be) but isn't the chokepoint the curve/station combo at Marcy, not the bridge proper?

I still don’t think you all are getting this. 

The Williamsburg Bridge can handle 25 trains per hour. When the  goes down, that’ll be 13 from Metropolitan on the  (all crushloaded with riders from myrtle wyckoff) and 12 from the  as always. Adding  service of any sort would require a reduction in other service. As has been proposed here, all stops on the  east of Bway Jct would see their service halved during rush hours to provide a one seat ride to 6 low ridership stops.

Those  riders can navigate what is really an easy transfer at Bway Jct if they want the  — we don’t need to penalize  riders to aid them in doing that. 

Now let’s get back to the R179. 

21 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I would do the branch on the Culver Line since dekalb cant spare a lot of trains. In this plan, a new  train would run from 168 St to Staten Island via 8 Av Exp, and Culver Exp. The line will run via the proposed Cross-Harbor Tunnel to St. George, where the line could either continue on Victory Blvd, or run along Castleton Av before swinging south and terminating at Victory Blvd. The  would get diverted to Jamaica to make room in the Cranberry Tubes, as well as to provide Midtown service along the Jamaica EL and Bway-Bklyn. The  would replace the  on Fulton.  Getting back to Staten Island, I feel it should be not very important compared to major projects such as SAS and the RBB because those areas are more demanding. But eventually, it should be considered. 

If you put the  on Jamaica without also putting it on 6th, you're instantly halving tph on 6th ave local -- and then, in consequence, Queens Boulevard. 

DeKalb has room for trains from Montague. Remember that  ? Which ran with the  ? That capacity is still there, waiting to be exploited. 

Finally, if you do the line from Culver, you're dragging SI riders well into brooklyn for no good reason, making the service *that* much more inefficient and uncompetitive. 

35 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The isnt going to be needed at this time anyway, and anyone who lives around Broadway Junction can take the L to Bway Junction and take a Chambers St bound  train. With the already having boosted service, only 3  trips during rush hour will operate to Chambers St. This plan would have worked during the time that the was cut west of Bway Junction and the was already terminating at Bway Junction, instead of having two useless routes, combine them into one.

If you use any station east of broadway junction, you’re getting screwed for the benefit of railfans. The  and  are the only trains there, and if you cut the  for a zombie  you’re by definition reducing service (by half during rushes actually). 

Unless the MTA has decided to shut the myrtle ave el north of Myrtle, the  will be running to Metro. IE not broadway junction. Which is better, because then more  riders can benefit, as all between broadway jct and myrtle wyckoff can xfer there. 

20 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I would just reroute some of the trains over Nassau to Midtown during tje 14th St shutdown to still give passengers a one seat ride to Manhattan, and elimnate the temporary during this time.

Would you really be willing to halve Jamaica Line service east of Bway Jct? All for 6 medium/low ridership stops? 

The  and  are already s#!+. They need service expansion not reduction. 

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Stealing this from the random thoughts to prepare for a brain exercise:

This is by no means serious, but here's a way I would reconstruct the B division in today's standards:

- as well as same

slightly less service+no 179 St service (Yeah yeah Jamaica and other forms of ridership can't handle a loss but again this is an exercise)

would run via 53 St at all times. Late nights via 63 St and local.

runs between Forest Hills and Metropolitan Av via 63 St at all times. Late nights unchanged.

between 179 St and Coney Island via Broadway/63 St/QBL exp. Some rush trips via 2 Av still.

unchanged

late night service cut to Atlantic Ave via express north of 36 St.

Astoria to Bay Parkway via local. Short turns and all late night trips to Whitehall Street. (If possible, maybe merge late night and service)

 

My question is what does this gain you? 

-Youre removing Broadway service from Queens Plaza.

-You're making 63rd st service patterns confusing.

-You're doing exactly what I warned against doing to 53 in my above post. 

If I was restructuring the B div, I would start by sending  to 96 as its main terminal, the  to Astoria/Kings Kighway (sea beach) at doubled tph (nights and weekends to CI replacing  rush hour  to 179 to eliminate the conga line), eliminating skip stop on  and replace it with express between Broadway and Myrtle, with the not-express going local to Marcy, and sending the  to lefferts. 

Unrelated, but what do y'all think of express on the  between 96 and 137 or 157? 

15 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The  would lose its yard, and having trains on different lines at different times of week wouldn't be too great. If I were to restructure QBL, I would do it this way.

 

  operates as normal.

  via 53rd rather than 63rd weekdays only (except late nights), this is to take pressure off the  .

 operates as normal.

 operates via 63rd now. Weekends  and late nights the  will take over for 63rd.

While some riders find this confusing, they did something like this back before the connector opened, where the  would go to Queensbridge on weekends and the  on weekdays. If people are too confused still, they can just take the tram or walk to 36th if they can't get that the  replaces the  outside of weekdays.

By doing that, you’re bringing back Queens boulevard of yore — an overcrowded, expressophilic mess. The  going to 63rd takes half of exp service to a less busy corridor, forcing riders to at least consider the local. Putting it back on 53 and the  on 63 not only gives riders little reason to stay on the local destination-wise, but also eliminates xfers to the  and  from half of trains serving QB local west of Roosevelt.  

That will once again create massive platform crowds, demonic express trains, and underutilized locals, all for what benefit? Putting things back “the way they should be”? Creating variety on 63? There’s a reason the current service pattern exists, and it’s a good one.

Terminating the  there normally is a terrible idea. You'd clog the interlocking with  trains snaking across 2 lanes of traffic to access the middle layup track. This is why the  was cut back -- too damn inefficient. 

Interesting about the  — idk then. Maybe someone else will comment. 

...doink! I did not read your post fully. My apologies. Yes, then the  could be sent to Howard beach, the only issue being that it wouldn’t allow trains to head directly to Jamaica yard once terminated, and in terms of maintaining service, is farther away so would lengthen headways. 

Given that weekend/late night service is already atrocious, I think it’d be better to rationalize flagging rules, no? The fact trains have to crawl at 10 for about a quarter mile on all adjacent tracks seems arcane... there must be some sort of happy medium between what we have and what existed before. 

29 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

It would be Ideal, from the standpoint that conga lines would be reduced if one of the locals branches off to Far Rockaway.

I wonder if there was track work on the QBL and all service was local if they could terminate the local trains at Howard Beach or something so that the  and  could run through unimpeded.

What would happen to 67 ave? 

13 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

So last night the  was running express, while the  was terminating at 34th St and so they had trains waiting for the  to clear before being able to proceed. Why don't they just switch the to the local track at 14th street until 34th street so that it's not held up?

As circular as this sounds, because the  was running express. It usually goes local 96-Chambers but there was obviously some GO that had them going exp. 

45 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I have a random Question, depending on the branch line, is it possible to move capacity over from a trunk line into a branch. Take the Rockaway Beach Branch and QBL as an example 

I don’t think I understand what you’re asking. Are you asking if you can add trains onto a branch from a main? If so, yes, of course you can  — if you couldn’t there would be no branching in our subway. 

If you’re asking if that is politically feasible, it depends/is complicated. In the RBB’s case, I’d think it’d be possible. 

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s true that you’d net benefit more people with an LIE branch off of the Queens Blvd Line. But the line would have to be built entirely from scratch, as would its tie-in to the QBL. And it would require widening the expressway right-of-way to make room for at least two tracks and make space for platforms at potential station locations. Also, like with a Rockaway Branch-Queens Blvd connection, it would be very beneficial to convert Woodhaven Blvd into an express station.

Speaking of Woodhaven Blvd, you would have to figure out how to get from under Queens Blvd to the expressway r-o-w. There isn’t a lot of space to do that because the LIE crosses over Queens Blvd  immediately east of the Woodhaven Blvd station. It seems like it would be easiest to make the connection between QB and the LIE via the local tracks and extend the  or  onto the LIE branch. But the northbound local track connection would have to swing under the four existing tracks, then ascend to the expressway level. At least with the RBB connection, there is already an existing provision for it and though you’d have to tunnel under 66th Ave or 65th Road, then under the LIRR Main Line to get over to the abandoned railroad branch, it seems like it would still be an easier connection. And though the r-o-w will require a considerable amount of rehabilitation to make it suitable for operations once again, that’s got to be much easier than widening a major expressway r-o-w to add tracks, together with relocating retaining walls and rebuilding overpasses in Northeast Queens to accommodate stations. Just adding car lanes to the LIE is no small task. Imagine how it would be add a subway r-o-w to the LIE.

To me, putting a subway service on the abandoned branch is providing an alternative transit option to a very busy  stretch of road from Broad Channel to Rego Park on Cross Bay and Woodhaven boulevards. A stretch of road that’s anything but a pleasant drive. Either you sit in heavy traffic or you deal with reckless drivers who are only too happy to speed up once the traffic breaks up.

Agreed that it should be subway. Connecting it back to the LIRR is a nonstarter because few people in the Rockaways, Howard Beach and Ozone Park will be willing to expensive LIRR fares and tolerate typical LIRR service frequencies of just 1-3 tph. Though I don’t think de Blasio is actively looking to convert the branch to a High Line type of park as a way of repaying his “developer overlords.” I think the Brooklyn-Queens streetcar is more likely to be a gift to them than preventing rail from ever returning to the RBB north of Liberty Avenue. 

Good points on engineering aspects. I was thinking that you’d use the express platform provisions at Woodhaven, create side platforms for LIE service, then tunnel under the service roads until the park (or thereabouts) where the line would ascend onto an AirTrain like structure above the expressway. Yes, community opposition to els is a thing, but given that there would be stations, and they already have an expwy there, it shouldn’t be that bad. 

Agreed that the RBB is a subway line in waiting though — parallels a busy corridor and is an existing rail ROW. Maybe the one that isn’t built can be tied into a bypass/Northern boulevard line..

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Simple:

It brings more direct midtown service to Manhattan, making it easier on people who live in The Rockaways.

It allows for a line of Queens Boulevard to directly access The Rockaways. 

Exactly. What I’m saying is that you’re net benefitting fewer ppl by doing that than with LIE. Those rock people have train service. People in Eastern queens don’t. 

I'm sure I've brought this up before, but why all the hype over the RBB? Aside from the short segment north of Forest Park (which can be taken care of with LMB service), it serves areas that already have some sort of subway access. Using QBlocal capacity to build out over the LIE to, say, utopia parkway brings access to many more people and areas than the RBB ever would. So why is this the holy grail? 

+expand service for Penn Access and normal ridership increases. 

26 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me throw this in the conversation.  I don't pretend to know the correct answer but is there any transport provider who doesn't design for maximum seating capacity? I thought that was the holy grail for airlines, rail, and bus manufacturers. 

I’d say design for maximum given market . The LIRR will never order M series cars with R160 bench seating because they will never carry enough passengers to warrant it, and the service they’re providing. 

Same applies to airlines. Ryanair will pack 737-800s with 189 seats, but Emirates would never think of putting 440 seats on a 77W, given the long-haul market those planes serve. 

In the case of buses, well, depends on what your route is. High density, high frequency, still crowded, cull seats. Otherwise, keep. 

6 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Right.... and busybodies being busybodies led up to the bevy of emasculated males we have out here.....

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you don't give people an inch to have them take a mile.... The point you're making at the end there is leading to my ultimate point... We're bored, let's throw shit on a wall, hope that it sticks, and if it's doesn't, we will, as women, try our damnedest to make it stick.... Pile onto this, other issues that largely benefit women, and a snowball effect commences... The whole is always greater than the sum of it's parts.... Open strollers by itself won't neuter masculinity....

What (or should I say, How) do you think the outcome will be from, for example, the women that signed this petition, if the the MTA were to reject this open strollers bit wholesale?

(Idk why this posted in 2 parts)