Jump to content

We Need An (8)


Recommended Posts

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

Even if Lexington Avenue Line gets an extra train it will still be crowded, you have to remember its only 1 subway line on the East Side of Manhattan so lets cross our fingers and pray that the 2nd Avenue Line gets done fast so it can relief the congestion of the Lexington Avenue Line!
agreed but waht will the (T) be IND or BMT?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

Wouldn't it be both because of the (Q) is BMT and it will share the upper part of the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i see what you all are saying and you have great points... but why not leave the IRT as is? you can't change what is already done... i mean if you wanna

(8) then why not a (11) for flushing, (13) for broadway-7th av, (12) for lexington.... all could be considered but nothin will actually be done about it, right???:confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep everything as is. There are no new BMT or IND lines since neither company exists anymore. The (T) will be a B Division line but if you want to be technical it would be an IND line. The (Q) is BMT that runs on IND trackage like the (R) but it doesn't matter anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lexington IRT is a very delicate system with a lot of service. In order to carry the crowds that it does now, it has to be run in a very specific manner. It's best not to alter it.

 

The (4),(5),and (6) lines run at full capacity now. There is no way to add more trains or a new # 8 service to the existing Lexington Ave corridor. Let's forget that scenario ASAP and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (4),(5),and (6) lines run at full capacity now. There is no way to add more trains or a new # 8 service to the existing Lexington Ave corridor. Let's forget that scenario ASAP and move on.

Well said, if you randomly add another service on the Lex line it would bring unwanted consequences that might affect everyone's commute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Saying that One little Train Can Effect Everything....That A (8) will mess up the whole (4)(5)(6)<6>?

I mean Maybe A local (8) Can Result In Less (6) Trains But Having Two Locals can also be beneficial to Lexington Ave as well

if it replaces the <6> then theres a better chance of people knowing were there going on account of some people just ride the first train that comes.

And if it runs with the (4) it can provide as a local in the bronx and the (4) can run express in the bronx rush hour.

I Think if teh (MTA) Ever thinks of this idea maybe that (8) can First be just a rush hour thing which also sound like a good thing for them i believe that all likes deserve four lines

Theres the (A)(C)(E) and once (K)

the (B)(D)(F)(Q6) which is now a (V)

the (N)(Q)(R)(W)

the (J)(M)(Z)

and the (1)(2)(3) and once (9)

the olny lines that are along are teh single lines (7)(G)(L) and future (T)...

all those line are four or were four. Four Diffrent Train Provide More of availability to who ever rides it...

In this case on a (8) lets per say that something happens to a downtown (6) train...every body from 149st down wont have a long wait for a (6) train because a (8) local will just show up and all they'll have to do is increase the number of locals and people will still get to were they need to go on time. now if theres a problem on a (6) train...every body is just screwed cause they have to wait till the next (6) comes and who knows what could happen causing major delays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Saying that One little Train Can Effect Everything....That A (8) will mess up the whole (4)(5)(6)<6>?

I mean Maybe A local (8) Can Result In Less (6) Trains But Having Two Locals can also be beneficial to Lexington Ave

Did you read Trainmaster5's comment? The Lexington line is running at full capacity and cannot support anymore trains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little off topic, but I don't want to start another thread for this:

 

When the SAS is done, do you think the Lex will still be operating at capacity? What I mean will they still have headways of 2-3 mins? Will the service down Lex reduce or stay the same?

 

Seeing as the subway was filled to capacity in 1904 when the IRT opened and that the SAS is an MTA project that will be useless, I would say so. The day the SAS opens all the people on the East Side who now walk to the LEx line will ride the SAS but remember that it will only be a very short spur and wont help anyone below 70 something street so all thoses riders will still be on the Lex and the same goes for those who live above 95th Street or the Bronx.

 

To DX- Give it up, if the LEx could handel another line like your (8) the MTA would have added it by now. To keep saying that it could be done is point less because many people have pointed out that it can't be done, even Tranimaster who is an IRT T/O. So get over it, you pln wont happen anytime soon if ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as the subway was filled to capacity in 1904 when the IRT opened and that the SAS is an MTA project that will be useless, I would say so. The day the SAS opens all the people on the East Side who now walk to the LEx line will ride the SAS but remember that it will only be a very short spur and wont help anyone below 70 something street so all thoses riders will still be on the Lex and the same goes for those who live above 95th Street or the Bronx.

 

That might be true for phase I but I'm talking about when phase IV is done. Although I wouldn't expect phase IV to be done until at least 2050, and I'm really not exaggerating. They are also making room for a Bronx extention by 116th street, but I wouldn't expect to see the SAS enter the Bronx in the next 100 years. Sad isn't it? And to think it took only 4 years to build Contract I IRT, the BMT Broadway line was built in 6 years, and most of the IND was built in 7-8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Saying that One little Train Can Effect Everything....That A (8) will mess up the whole (4)(5)(6)<6>?

I mean Maybe A local (8) Can Result In Less (6) Trains But Having Two Locals can also be beneficial to Lexington Ave as well

if it replaces the <6> then theres a better chance of people knowing were there going on account of some people just ride the first train that comes.

And if it runs with the (4) it can provide as a local in the bronx and the (4) can run express in the bronx rush hour.

I Think if teh (MTA) Ever thinks of this idea maybe that (8) can First be just a rush hour thing which also sound like a good thing for them i believe that all likes deserve four lines

Theres the (A)(C)(E) and once (K)

the (:P(D)(F)(Q6) which is now a (V)

the (N)(Q)(R)(W)

the (J)(M)(Z)

and the (1)(2)(3) and once (9)

the olny lines that are along are teh single lines (7)(G)(L) and future (T)...

all those line are four or were four. Four Diffrent Train Provide More of availability to who ever rides it...

In this case on a (8) lets per say that something happens to a downtown (6) train...every body from 149st down wont have a long wait for a (6) train because a (8) local will just show up and all they'll have to do is increase the number of locals and people will still get to were they need to go on time. now if theres a problem on a (6) train...every body is just screwed cause they have to wait till the next (6) comes and who knows what could happen causing major delays

 

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you do not have a full grasp of subway service planning. It's not about adding random lines everywhere, it's about what makes sense for the whole. Even if it looks good for the passengers on one end, if it messes up the entire trunk line, it does no good to everyone.

Look I'm not trying to exert a "know-it-all" attitude, but if you think about it, our system is so complex, it can't be put into words. Our system is not just branch-line, branch-line. It's a system where you have multiple interlinings, where branches split off and rejoin with other branches. That is why service planning is a pain.

Your point about the (Q6) becoming the (V) is clearly moot. The reason for that to happen was, the (F) had to run via the 63rd, and there needs to be a substitute part-time service along the QBL that services the 53rd Street tunnel and the 6th Avenue local. Careful logistics must be done before allowing for this to happen.

Having multiple lines down a single trunk line would happen if the existing infrastructure allows it to happen.

If your number 8 replaces the <6>, I fear there is no need for a separate designation. The diamond 6 does not confuse the bejeezus out of people. If your number 8 is a line from Woodlawn running down the Lex Local, I don't think the Bronx people there would be happy. AFAIK, they want a one seat express service down to Manhattan. Yes, many get off at 149th for other services, but having the 8 train running could reduce the number of 4 trains running, which are part of the express service.

If I plan a service I take the following steps:

-Does it benefit the community on that line?

-Does it affect service on the other lines?

-How much will the new line affect the other services?

-Is there a way to mitigate disruptions or delays on other services?

-Is there a way to maximise the level of service provided on the line proposed and lines that the proposed line is interlining with?

 

Next time, ask yourself those questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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