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.

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,396
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

T to Dyre Avenue last won the day on July 5 2019

T to Dyre Avenue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,121 Excellent

About T to Dyre Avenue

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Whitestone, Queens

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That’ll just cause confusion elsewhere. Those trips were done specifically because they can’t turn any more trains than they already do at Stillwell, so they borrow a few from the (which can’t turn all of its trains plus the at Ditmars) and one from the . Now if we relabeled all those 96th St-bound trips as Q’s, it would cause confusion in Brooklyn. Same with the . The three E’s that start at 179 do so because Jamaica Center can’t turn all of the E’s rush hour service needs.
  2. The photo in the last post in the Random Thoughts thread shows 10 cars in the train. Those R160s really should run on the , whose crews should certainly be familiar with them, given that R160s have run on the in the past (even while the was all R46s and 32s).
  3. Overall, it’s plausible that a “doomsday” service plan might look something like this. But I’d like to suggest some tweaks to it: - I’d have the run solely from Dyre. With the still on White Plains Road, the peak direction WPR would be a pretty easy cut (it was suspended during “Essential Service” phase). - I’d have the go to Lefferts because that’s the busier branch and bustitute the Rockaways services. - I’d keep the and run it as a 6th Avenue local starting at 57th/6th, then via its current route after West 4th (the ran this same service pattern from 1968-86). - I’d also keep the as a Queens-Manhattan service, terminating either at 34th St or 2nd Avenue. It would run express in Queens alongside the . Both lines’ northern terminals would be the same as now. - I’d run the as the QB local to/from 71st Ave, then via 63rd St tunnel, Broadway Express and the Manhattan Bridge. Then in Brooklyn, I’d have the run local to/from Bay Ridge. - I’d run the to/from Astoria to Stillwell via 60th, Broadway Local and Montague. Once in Brooklyn, the would switch to the 4th Avenue express tracks and run to/from Stillwell via the Sea Beach Line (the ran this same service pattern from 1994-2001). - The would be discontinued. I agree with the changes to the other services. Though I really, really hope it doesn’t have to come to this. I’d prefer the to go a bit further north to 57th because Rockefeller Center will eventually become bustling again and I think it’s too much of major destination to completely eliminate subway service to, even if 49th St on the isn’t that far away. And having the in Brooklyn would allow the and to each operate only on one branch off of 4th Avenue, instead of forking.
  4. Sure, if there’s a way to do it without the wye and connect directly with the at Grand, then I’m all in favor of it. I do believe at least part of that pathway is still there, so maybe it would be possible for the to break off from the starting at the old Nassau loop tracks, with the joining the somewhere between Grand and Houston coming off a reconfigured Chrystie connection. The would start in Queens and have a 63rd-2nd Avenue link. This would be in tandem with a reconfigured QBL service pattern. The and a reinstated via 53rd would be the locals and the and via 63rd would be the expresses. The and would terminate at 71st/Continental, the would terminate at Jamaica Center (or Laurelton), while the would remain unchanged. There would be no merging on the QBL proper except for the and in Briarwood. Now, I haven’t got the foggiest idea how far the would have to go to clear the , but if it’s possible, then I’m for it. In the past, this is what I wanted, but got a lot of pushback over it. In the past, the general consensus here and on other NYC Transit-related websites was in favor of the Water St alignment, as favored by the MTA.
  5. Agreed; you can’t have the and two SAS services or the on the Willy B at the same time. A while ago, I suggested an idea in the Proposals thread that would preserve the transfer to the at Fulton. I quoted it further down in this post. But you don’t have to reroute all Williamsburg Bridge trains to 2nd Avenue. I suggested this idea as a long-term possibility: So it would be only the that turns uptown from Essex, as the current does. The J and Z would continue downtown to Nassau St ad now, joined by the , which would run strictly north-south from East Harlem to Broad St (possibly beyond, but I haven’t thought that far out yet, lol). The and would be the only services on 2nd Avenue proper from Houston to 63rd (possibly shifting onto 3rd Avenue in the East 40s and 50s to facilitate transfers to the Queens-bound tunnel services there). You wouldn’t be able to turn J, T and Z services at Broad at the same time, so might I suggest turning the Z at Chambers when it’s in operation. This preserves the connection with the A, C, 2, 3, 4 and 5 at Fulton. I’m also going to suggest scrapping skip-stop service and running the J peak express between Broadway Junction and Marcy on weekdays, while running the Z local alongside the M. Though I do realize that the wye that would be needed to allow for this would be quite complex and very expensive to build. And J, M, T and Z trains would either be limited to 9-car trains or the existing stations on the Jamaica and Myrtle els and the Nassau subway stations would need their platforms to be lengthened to allow 10-car trains. Of course, this assumes that we ever do get to SAS phases 3 and 4. We’ll be lucky if we get Phase 2 built.
  6. Agreed here. Maybe one alternative could have been to rebuild the upper level at Embarcadero with two outer tracks for the N/T extension to 4th and King, while J, L and M still terminated on the original (middle) tracks. The current setup is definitely a bad one. I remember getting delayed entering Embarcadero due to trains reversing there when I was there in 2011.
  7. Agreed. There really should be something like the tall plastic partitions being used on the local buses to block them off from passengers. I wasn’t surprised to see that flimsy yellow plastic chain get broken.
  8. Personally, I’d rather use the Chrystie-Willy B tracks to connect to the 2nd Avenue Subway and leave the on the Manhattan Bridge. Every proposal I see for sending the and to Williamsburg either calls for reducing the Nassau St Subway to a shuttle or abandoning it entirely. I’d much rather see Nassau incorporated into the SAS than be abandoned.
  9. It shouldn’t. The doesn’t go there anymore. It hasn’t since the work was finished in the train tubes. Weekends, is cut back to Essex now.
  10. Agreed about the J-Church and K-Ingleside. One long-term idea I thought about is to combine them (they have been before, most recently during a 2018 Twin Peaks tunnel closure) and have them run crosstown via San Jose Avenue, Guerrero St and Cesar Chavez St, then merge onto Third St and operate into the new Central Subway alongside the T-Third. This would free up considerable capacity in the Market St/Twin Peaks Subway for the L-Taraval, M-Ocean View and N-Judah routes. The L and M would terminate at Embarcadero and the N would continue to 4th St/Caltrain as now. As for the swap, yes, I’m concerned about cutting service to Roosevelt Island and Queensbridge by 40 percent. Then again, it is just two stops. I think running the Astoria-Bay Ridge and the as a Forest Hills-Whitehall short turn (provided the is not also still running to Astoria because that will suppress frequency and still force merging delays at 34th) would be a big improvement over the current setup. Agree on the QBL related service changes. I’m flexible on the letters since Astoria riders are already familiar with the and QB riders are already familiar with the . The hasn’t served Astoria since 1987, although it has always served Bay Ridge. But so far, it seems that whatever idea Transit proposed is dealing solely with swapping the ‘s and ’s tunnels, and Broadway service would likely be dealt with separately, even though Broadway and QBL are interconnected. Though if there are extra trains via 63rd that can’t go to Metropolitan because there isn’t enough capacity on the Willy B, call them if they short turn at 2nd Ave and if they continue onto Brooklyn via the . It would be very confusing to have service via 53rd and service alongside the via 63rd. For Muni, I was also thinking maybe the J-Church could join the F-Market line on the surface. But I don’t think Muni has enough historic trolleys for both the F and the full J line, plus the E-Embarcadero line. But I don’t know if the current Breda and Siemens LRVs can use old-school trolley poles to collect power on Market St. I seem to recall reading that in the Muni Metro era, PCC cars divert over the J to Balboa Park Yard for servicing. But I’ve only read of one instance where Muni ran an LRV on the Market St surface tracks with a trolley pole. It was a Boeing LRV (which probably used much less juice than the current LRVs do) and it was for some sort of special event. Maybe one solution can be to split the J route at 30th and Church, where the original Church portion of the route can run with PCC cars (there might be enough for that), while the San Jose segment is through routed with the K and turns onto Guerrero, Cesar Chavez and Third and runs into the new Central Subway. Guerrero and Cesar Chavez are wide “stroads,” which should easily be able to host dedicated LRV lanes. And it would be a shame to run just one service in the new subway, while five services cram into the existing subway, or having to turn two of those services into glorified streetcar lines
  11. But in Muni’s case, they will be ending service in the Market St subway on the J-Church, K-Ingleside and L-Taraval lines entirely. J riders will have to change for the through-routed M/T or the S-Shuttle services at Church and Market, while K and L riders will have to change for those services at West Portal. They will also be through-routing the K and L lines. I can foresee a lot of people being inconvenienced by this, especially L riders. I don’t know a lot about Muni riders’ habits, but given that the L is one of the routes still running (as a bus, as are the N-Judah and T-Third routes) and that it had an owl bus service, I think the new K/L service won’t be popular or convenient for riders. Though I have a feeling this will be temporary because once the Central Subway opens next year, the T-Third line will be rerouted there and it won’t be able to through-route with the M-Ocean View line. Maybe some sort of long-term solution could be a crosstown light rail route or two that could allow J and/or K trains from southern SF to connect with the T and use the Central Subway instead of cramming into Market. My wife and I visited San Francisco in 2011 and I do remember trains stopping between stations a lot. Now, bringing this back home, at least the swap won’t result in any shuttle routes like in San Francisco. It will do away two of the three merges in the Queens Plaza/36th St area that cause QBL service to get so messed up all the time. But it will result in a sharp service cut at 21st St-Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island, because trains are limited to eight 60-foot cars and current run only 8-9 tph during rush. Either they run the more frequently to make up for the shorter trains. Also you would now have all express service going via 53rd and potentially overwhelming Lex/53rd, which was the case in the past (pre- train era). Though I do like the idea of doing away with the merge at 36th and the merge at Queens Plaza. Instead, there would be only an merge at 5th Ave (aside from the merge at Queens Plaza, which we’ve already got). On the other hand, I’ve got to wonder if this swap will be scrapped entirely because Corona. I recall reading they were looking to start it in April, but with the ginormous Corona-related deficit staring the MTA in the face, I wonder if they’ll even bother now.
  12. Apparently, it’s not over yet for the R32s. The Daily News reports that they are going back into service on the and on Wednesday. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-l-train-normal-service-covid-19-20200628-lntxyjbwdbhizky4sw5i6dbjgq-story.html
  13. In fairness, the ran only during rush hours and the replacement service also ran during rush hours only (and still does today with midday and evening service turning at 145th St). Now if it was the full-time that was slated to be replaced with another service, then you might see Concourse riders raise hell over it. Losing the was not a big loss because the came back in 2016, so there was little loss of train frequency in Astoria (if any). Normally I’d gladly be in favor of a peak express / peak local operation over the current skip-stop operation, especially if it runs for all of rush hour (unlike skip-stop). My concerns with such operation is that if the new and run on the same frequencies as the current ones (6 tph), then every stop east of Myrtle Avenue is going to have only 6 tph in the peak direction except Broadway Junction. The stops between Myrtle and the Junction would get 12 tph in the reverse-peak, which is probably more than is needed for reverse-peak, but that’s an unfortunate consequence of doing a peak express on any three-track line. With only 6 tph, it could either result in more crowded trains east of the Junction, or it could chase riders away, either to other lines or other forms of transportation. And although it been established that Brighton riders prefer direct Broadway service over 6th Avenue service, would they really be willing to accept a long-term, full-time loss of Brighton Express service. They put up with it these past few months because they knew it would be temporary. But if the upcoming fiscal pain is going to force a long-term suspension of Brighton express service, I have a feeling you’re going to see major blowback over it, even if the gets a boost in service. Likewise in Astoria, if the gets cut long-term. They can’t substitute the to Astoria in place of the now, unlike in 2010.
  14. Probably won’t see the eliminated again unless ridership on the Astoria line stays down. But I doubt that would happen. As for the , the savings would only happen if service is reduced overall. For example, an all stop running only 8 tph. Every station would get 8 tph, however the current all-stop stations see their service reduced from 12 to 8 tph. But to have a peak express west of Broadway Junction would require both the local service to/from the Junction and the peak express to run at a combined frequency that’s greater than the current 12 tph offered by the and outside of the “skipped” stops. Otherwise, the vast majority of stations will have very infrequent service, which wouldn’t sit well with riders either.
  15. Yes, something of this magnitude certainly can prevent the R211s from coming in on time. But if the base order of 535 cars is already paid for, then we will get them, maybe a year or (hopefully not) two behind schedule. Why wouldn’t we if they’re already paid for? The option orders are a different story. If those aren’t yet paid for, then we’re looking at a significant number of R46s sticking around for the foreseeable future. Well, we did (at NYCTA, anyway)... When exactly were the R211s ever promised to Jamaica? They already got R160s and now every single train that runs on the Queens Blvd Line is an R160, fully capable of interfacing with CBTC. That’s exactly what they needed to do, so there’s really no reason to waste time and return the former CI R160s back to CI. Yes, they did that with the Livonia and Westchester R62As, although those cars ran on the for 15 years before being returned to the , and Corona Barn wasn’t properly equipped to handle any New Tech-generation trains. But the R62As did have A/C and, in 2002, still had many single units, so they could easily send them to Corona to run 11-car trains on the and (the railfan in me really would have liked for them to have used the purple 11 bullet on the roll signs when the R62As were there, but since they’re not there now, it doesn’t really matter). Only the base order of 535 cars was paid for in the 2015-19 Capital Plan. So we’ll get those cars, albeit a year or two later than expected. That won’t be enough to fully equip the , and lines, so some R160s will have to stay in Jamaica. Why have two significantly different car classes to contend with when you’ve currently got just one? Jamaica is fully R160s now, including the ENY trains that come to visit on weekdays when the is running there. Why change it back? Because someone at Transit “made a promise” that the R211s would be put there years ago? Someone who might not even be there now?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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