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.

Archived

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

Pelham Bay Dave

1 2 3 Lines Improvements

Recommended Posts

What would you improve?

 

My (1)(2)(3) Lines Imporvements

 

(1) AM Rush Hour Local 242 St to South Ferry with some trains operating Between 137 St to South Ferry ( The trains from the YD go in service at 137 Southbound instead of running light to 242 St) to relieve overcrowding at the busy stations.

 

(9) Rush Hours only peak direction Express Stops from 157 St to Chambers. It would operate from 242 St / 238 St to South Ferry.

 

(2) Express service restored on the Late Nights

 

(3) Late Night operate Local from 148 St to South Ferry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the (1) and (9) idea...I actually had crafted something similar.

 

First I'll say that all of this would be in conjunction with what I posted here:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2420&p=19537

 

(1) South Ferry to 242

(9) same route, peak express only...express 96 to 145 (based on feedback), I'd also consider running it express from Dyckman to 238 if rider feedback said "good idea" but I'm not sure it would be and it might interfere with moves in and out of the yard during the heavy service intervals, particularly around middays and evenings, when trains are going off the road

 

NTT's on this line would be nice because then crews could just reprogram them at the terminal quickly from (1) to (9) or back without the need to walk the train with a sign changer. This would also eliminate the need for special (9) put ins when it's "peak express time" - put ins could just enter service as normal at 238, signed as either (1) or (9) as need be - total flexibility there with scheduling runs...and since the new South Ferry terminal and use of the express track would allow more trains to be run, headways would then be the same along the (1), now just mix in some (9)'s on the express track, total = more service, which can be supported by the tracks now that there'd be TWO 2-track stub end terminal stations, even where the (1) and (9) are sharing track.

 

Line would be a good candidate for CBTC after the 7 gets it, too...

 

I like this because it would separate those going to 103/110/116/125 off the (9) and onto the (1), and Bronx / upper Manhattan folks could take the (9) and avoid the masses going to / coming from those 4 stations. I'm undecided about express from Dyckman to 238 as I don't know how useful it'd be...

 

Typical service pattern would be 2 (1)'s for every (9) during the rush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To improve the (2) line i would...

 

1]run on shorter headways even though that might run the R142s into the ground LOL.

2]peak express sevice in the bronx from 238th street to grand concouse.

3]take out those timer signals going mantthan bound from frankin ave to bough hall.

4]STOP swaping fleets with the (5) its annoying that most of the R142s on the (2) have wrong stripmaps.

5] put the R110A back on the (2) just like in the 90s. Its stting in the "(2) line" yard why not use it on the (2) line?

 

to improve the (1) line i would...

1] have the corner cars as the first car so there will be railfan windows again.

2]send some (3) trains up to 137th street to help out the (1) line with crowding.

 

To improve the (3) line i would...

1]have corner cars as the first car so there will be railfan windows again

2]run on longer headways its annoying that three (3) come before one (2) train comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To improve the (2) line i would...

 

1]run on shorter headways even though that might run the R142s into the ground LOL.

2]peak express sevice in the bronx from 238th street to grand concouse.

3]take out those timer signals going mantthan bound from frankin ave to bough hall.

4]STOP swaping fleets with the (5) its annoying that most of the R142s on the (2) have wrong stripmaps.

5] put the R110A back on the (2) just like in the 90s. Its stting in the "(2) line" yard why not use it on the (2) line?

 

to improve the (1) line i would...

1] have the corner cars as the first car so there will be railfan windows again.

2]send some (3) trains up to 137th street to help out the (1) line with crowding.

 

To improve the (3) line i would...

1]have corner cars as the first car so there will be railfan windows again

2]run on longer headways its annoying that three (3) come before one (2) train comes.

 

I have something against a few things you said. I like the idea that they should stop swaping with the (5) trains, but the only reason they do that is to help solve the muiltiple (3) trains that come before the (2). I also want to tell you that the only reason why they did take the RFWs out is because the driver is crammed up in that little box. Also, if you send the (3) up to 137, you would be stripping the Lenox citizens out of thier trains. Also, there is a reason why the R110As aren't running because of the R142s on the line....There SHOULD NOT be peak service because of the heavy track layups around the area where it swiches back. It would disrupt the (5) and then you'd be complaining about that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have something against a few things you said. I like the idea that they should stop swaping with the (5) trains, but the only reason they do that is to help solve the muiltiple (3) trains that come before the (2). I also want to tell you that the only reason why they did take the RFWs out is because the driver is crammed up in that little box. Also, if you send the (3) up to 137, you would be stripping the Lenox citizens out of thier trains. Also, there is a reason why the R110As aren't running because of the R142s on the line....There SHOULD NOT be peak service because of the heavy track layups around the area where it swiches back. It would disrupt the (5) and then you'd be complaining about that as well.

 

T/Os dont feel crammed up in the corner cabs of trains. I dont think thats the reason why they use the transverse cab on the R62/As.

 

And i meant to say send SOME (3) trains up to 137th street not all of them.

 

And being that the R142s are unreliable the (2)(4) and (5) lines have been having car shortages because of R142s OOS with problems.

 

The MTA needs to put those 110As back into service on the (2). They be having battery runs every day on the (2) the R110A needs to comeback to the (2) line period. I say the MTA just buy some damn parts from kawaski and put them back into service already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not getting the point about the R110As. They were served to be a prototype for the NTTs like the R142s and the R142As. Now that the R110As have done their service, why would MTA still need them. Why fix something like that, when you can fix something on the R142s? Also, the (3) to 137 WOULD NOT relieve cramming. The (1) are good enough as they are already. Also, (3) would have to switch to the local track at 96 street and then the layup at 137. Plus the time needed to unload passengers and say "THIS IS THE LAST STOP ON THIS TRAIN" would stall EVERY (1) behind the (3). Bad idea...

 

Now back to the cab image: If you were the driver, which would you prefer? Open space or a little box of room?

 

It seems to me that you are a hater of the R142s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your not getting the point about the R110As. They were served to be a prototype for the NTTs like the R142s and the R142As. Now that the R110As have done their service, why would MTA still need them. Why fix something like that, when you can fix something on the R142s? Also, the (3) to 137 WOULD NOT relieve cramming. The (1) are good enough as they are already. Also, (3) would have to switch to the local track at 96 street and then the layup at 137. Plus the time needed to unload passengers and say "THIS IS THE LAST STOP ON THIS TRAIN" would stall EVERY (1) behind the (3). Bad idea...

 

Now back to the cab image: If you were the driver, which would you prefer? Open space or a little box of room?

 

It seems to me that you are a hater of the R142s...

Uh i know that the R110As were prototype trains. But they could be rebuilt just like the R11s were which was also prototype trains....

 

When theres a big gap in service on the (1) run some (3) trains to 137th street to cut down to battery runs on the (1). Or hell even send them to 242 if the road is backed up...

 

If i was a T/O i would pefer the corner cabs when i was younger it was my dream to operate greatbirds on the (2) line which are corner cab cars. I would like people looking the RFW on the my train watching me operate...

 

And yes im a certified hater of the R142/As....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When theres a big gap in service on the (1) run some (3) trains to 137th street to cut down to battery runs on the (1). Or hell even send them to 242 if the road is backed up...

 

If i was a T/O i would pefer the corner cabs when i was younger it was my dream to operate greatbirds on the (2) line which are corner cab cars. I would like people looking the RFW on the my train watching me operate...

 

Running the (3) to 137 wouldn't work because it would jack up both lcl and exp by 96 waiting for that (3) to cross over. Also you'd have to fumigate those trains at 137 N/B - no passengers allowed in the relay - so this would hold things up while (3) crews made sure everyone was off...plus it's going to be made even more difficult telling that crowded N/B platform that the train that just pulled in is going to relay, and they can't board it. Not to mention that the (MTA) would have to station and pay for another switchman, maybe even two, at 137 to help out with the relay procedure...

 

Battery runs are necessary when a train drops way behind schedule. If the geese don't like it, stop holding the doors. Running the (3) up there isn't going to cut down on battery runs...in fact it might actually make MORE of them to close service gaps created by fumigating trains at 137, or trains delayed around 96 while that (3) crosses over.

 

And I agree w/ Pelham Bay Dave on the transverse cabs. I like looking out the front as much as anyone, especially watching the timers clear, looking at tunnel signage, etc., and seeing how the various T/Os operate, but I completely understand where they're coming from when they say they want more room. I mean imagine working in a phone booth for hours at a time, it's kind of the same thing...

 

Somewhat related to the disappearance of RFW's though...I'm curious what T/O's and C/R's think of the "zero tolerance for ANYONE in the cab" rule as a whole. Obviously there are people that NO ONE wants riding in the cabs, or anywhere otherwise near an RFW or crew member, but what about the rest who might make the day go faster with good conversation, or snacks for the road, or when a T/O bumps into an old friend and might like to catch up? Does "zero tolerance" seem too strict, or should T/O's be allowed to exercise their own discretion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhat related to the disappearance of RFW's though...I'm curious what T/O's and C/R's think of the "zero tolerance for ANYONE in the cab" rule as a whole. Obviously there are people that NO ONE wants riding in the cabs, or anywhere otherwise near an RFW or crew member, but what about the rest who might make the day go faster with good conversation, or snacks for the road, or when a T/O bumps into an old friend and might like to catch up? Does "zero tolerance" seem too strict, or should T/O's be allowed to exercise their own discretion?

 

To each is own thats all I have to say about that..

 

Now the "RTO" response is NO distractions"...

 

You run a Homeball or a station with somebody in your cab that dont belong there you are asking for trouble..

 

Which has happened BTW...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Somewhat related to the disappearance of RFW's though...I'm curious what T/O's and C/R's think of the "zero tolerance for ANYONE in the cab" rule as a whole. Obviously there are people that NO ONE wants riding in the cabs, or anywhere otherwise near an RFW or crew member, but what about the rest who might make the day go faster with good conversation, or snacks for the road, or when a T/O bumps into an old friend and might like to catch up? Does "zero tolerance" seem too strict, or should T/O's be allowed to exercise their own discretion?

 

 

If an MTA employee is in there well......they can't sue anyone. Signed, sealed, delivered. Problem is as RTOMan says. You (T/O) is asking for trouble. First thing they will hang you with, is you had someone in the cab that shouldn't be there, and you weren't paying attention, cause you were too busy engaged in a conversation. So you weren't paying attention to your job (watching those signals and tracks), and now are in deep doo-doo. They can care less what you say (it just turned to quick etc....). They only care of what they think. In a case like this, they would be nearly 100% correct. Same reason why B/O are not suppose to be talking while driving here. They want us paying attention to what is going on around us.

 

 

As for the cabs, C/Rs don't have to go from car to car to open doors on different sides. It is problematic to do this during the rush with a crush. I highly suspect that is why it is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to think they would make transverse cabs for the crew comfort and safety but the real reason is OPTO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T/O's don't like corner cabs we like transverse cabs.

 

but dont corner cabs have better heat and A/C? Wheres the transverse cabs are hot in the summer and cold in the winter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but dont corner cabs have better heat and A/C? Wheres the transverse cabs are hot in the summer and cold in the winter?

 

If what I hear is correct Many of the older trains, aka the car classes that have corner cabs, are very drafty in the winter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter...its proved that drivers like a transverse cab rather than some squished box. It is also good for the conductor because all they have to do is walk a few feet instead of switching to another car to open the doors. (MTA) Emplyeees are better off without RFWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter...its proved that drivers like a transverse cab rather than some squished box. It is also good for the conductor because all they have to do is walk a few feet instead of switching to another car to open the doors. (MTA) Emplyeees are better off without RFWs.

 

Hey dont say that on "the other" site!!!

 

:cool::cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My improvements for the (1), (2) and (3) are:

1) Making the (3) 24-hours

2) Reinstate the (9) during Rush Hours - The (1) runs horrible all the time.

3) Have some (2) trains run express just like the (5) during off peak hours.

4) Put some R142 on the (1) and (3) and just mixing all three lines with R62, R62A and R142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My improvements for the (1), (2) and (3) are:

4) Put some R142 on the (1) and (3) and just mixing all three lines with R62, R62A and R142

 

Not an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see a walking transfer added from the (1)/(2)/(3) at 34th Street to the (A)/©/(E) at Penn Station.

Just make the transfer at 42nd Street.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just make the transfer at 42nd Street.....

 

Well put Pablo. You would also have to walk about 4 (maybe more) city blocks in a tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well put Pablo. You would also have to walk about 4 (maybe more) city blocks in a tunnel.

At the 34th Street station, you wouldn't have to walk that long. It'll just be one long block from 7th Ave to 8th Ave. Same situation at 42nd Street with the connection already there.

 

Problem with making a connection from the (A)(C)(E) to the (1)(2)(3) is the railroad station right in the way between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another problem with the 8th and 7th Avenue transfers is that if you are going to/ from a 7th Avenue line to an 8th Avenue line is that you have a long walk because the 8th Avenue platforms are offset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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