R179 Discussion Thread

[Lawrence St]

9 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

 

Okay, that makes sense kinda what I figured. That's what I know from other cities namely London with the Central and Jubilee upgrades they did it sections and the driver would switch over after a station stop at the beginning of the ATO zone. Would it be worth it is my question? So you have 480ft train halfway up the ramp having to switch into CBTC mode then im sure there's a wait for the backend system to place this train in reference to other trains along the line. Is the back of the train clear of the  platform? Is there a possible backup there on service?  There could also be a train leaving the upper level at that same time for all we know totally blind to the train ramping up that Broadway  would have to wait. They're going to be some type of bottleneck at the converging points   bothways don't think you could get around that. That's okay for weekend G.O's but rush hours?    

That seems to be like the best idea. Sure you may have 1  train backed up, but it would still benefit riders because remember, the  is practically a  train during this time.

[RailRunRob]

8 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

That seems to be like the best idea. Sure you may have 1  train backed up, but it would still benefit riders because remember, the  is practically a  train during this time.

What's the rider matrix? That would give us a better understanding of where people are going. Are people going to Midtown or Lower Manhattan?  There taking a Broadway   to where? To Essex to get the  or ?  Im sure the MTA looked at that option as well there's a reason they're not going with it. The G and the M should be sufficient as a bypass.

[R42N]

8 hours 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.

Yep, that’s an idea I brought up. You could cut  service by 40% out of Canarsie (to Bedford avenue), and add additional service (call it the  , probably) via Williamsburg Bridge, 6th Avenue and up to 96st/2ave. With similar hours to the  with 18 hours for 5 days a week. 

Of course, car shortage and passenger confusion will likely be cited as reasons on why this shouldn’t take place, but in a perfect system, this would be the best. 

[RR503]

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. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by RR503

[Fan Railer]

15 hours ago, 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. 

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

[RailRunRob]

2 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

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

What was the throughput before the timers and the 95 event?

[RR503]

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?

[Bosco]

4 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

What was the throughput before the timers and the 95 event?

Not exactly sure, but it was certainly reduced after the fact.

 

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

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?

The number one issue with the Williamsburg Bridge is the timers they installed in response to the 1995 accident on the bridge.


In R179 news: A test train has been spotted at Coney Island, presumably for more testing this weekend.  Courtesy of TheTransitProductions:

 

[subwaycommuter1983]

On 11/1/2017 at 9:50 AM, R42N said:

Agreed. For all the issues with the subways, the bus fleet instillation has been pretty good, and can be purchased and in-service in months, not years. That being said, this should be a back up to the back up plan, no one is going to want to take the  go to street level because of overcrowding on the , wait for a bus, go slower, and the go back on the street and walk to the Court Square station, when you can do that in-house on the subway. 

Agreed. Many people are going to be reluctant to ride the buses. 

However, keep in mind that these buses should run as shuttle buses. If the MTA purchases the right number of articulated (accordion) buses and bus lanes are created,  then these buses should run efficiently and quick. Also, articulated buses can accommodate more people than regular buses.

On 11/1/2017 at 11:48 PM, Art Vandelay said:

This would not be a sufficient backup plan. Without a significantly expanded G, the 14th shutdown probably can't happen. 

Yes, but if the r179's aren't delivered by April 2019, there will be a car shortage, and the G train can't be expanded if there is a car shortage. That's why more articulated buses need to be purchased just in case. 

On 11/2/2017 at 10:50 AM, Lance said:

Bus order turnaround is quicker because it's a bus and not an 8-10 car train. There isn't much to it besides ensuring the bus actually runs and can fit on city streets. Trains are a different monster entirely because of the track layout/dimensions, the signal system and a variety of other factors. That's why we're practically stuck with only two vendors at the moment. It's also why I'm hoping someone besides Kawasaki gets the R211 order, if not for anything else, than to provide some serious competition and an alternative to the status quo.

I completely agree. 

[Art Vandelay]

39 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

 

Yes, but if the r179's aren't delivered by April 2019, there will be a car shortage, and the G train can't be expanded if there is a car shortage. That's why more articulated buses need to be purchased just in case. 

What I was saying was, without the G train expansion, the L train shutdown cannot realistically happen. G train expansion is an essential part, Shuttle buses are not an option as a substitute. 

[R42N]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Agreed. Many people are going to be reluctant to ride the buses. 

However, keep in mind that these buses should run as shuttle buses. If the MTA purchases the right number of articulated (accordion) buses and bus lanes are created,  then these buses should run efficiently and quick. Also, articulated buses can accommodate more people than regular buses.

 

 

Oh, 100%. The buses can get you there faster than the train if things work well, but still, if there is any inclement weather, if it’s too cold or too warm, or if it gets a reputation for being un-reliable or packed, you’ll still have the vast majority sticking with the subway. 

Heck even I wouldn’t want to enter the system, leave it, wait for a bus, and re-enter a wait some more twice a day. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by R42N

[subwaycommuter1983]

11 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

What I was saying was, without the G train expansion, the L train shutdown cannot realistically happen. G train expansion is an essential part, Shuttle buses are not an option as a substitute. 

True. The best thing that could happen is that all r179's are delivered before April 2019, so that extra trains are added to the G, J and M trains.

Worst case scenario: shuttle articulated buses to supplement service or even postpone construction on the Canarsie tunnel. 

In the meantime, let's cross our fingers and hope for the best.

[subwaycommuter1983]

The complete delivery of the r179's is crucial for the L train shutdown to happen. 

The MTA needs a backup plan if the delays on the delivery of r179's continue.

The two most feasible back up plan options:

1) Articulated buses (I explained why in previous posts)

2) Postponing construction on the Canarsie tunnel 

Let's hope for the best!!!!

[Bosco]

2 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The complete delivery of the r179's is crucial for the L train shutdown to happen. 

The MTA needs a backup plan if the delays on the delivery of r179's continue.

The two most feasible back up plan options:

1) Articulated buses (I explained why in previous posts)

2) Postponing construction on the Canarsie tunnel 

Let's hope for the best!!!!

The MTA really can't afford to push the start date back any further.  They already shaved three months off the original date, plus if it weren't for the heavy ridership, they would've had it done by now.  There was a video the MTA shared showing how dire the tunnel situation is.

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Bosco said:

The MTA really can't afford to push the start date back any further.  They already shaved three months off the original date, plus if it weren't for the heavy ridership, they would've had it done by now.  There was a video the MTA shared showing how dire the tunnel situation is.

Yeah, I don't think that's an option. CBTC equipment, in this case, might have been the saving grace that allowed them to hold off as long as they did. Seemed to fair a lot better against that saltwater.

Edited November 4, 2017 by RailRunRob

[R42N]

On November 2, 2017 at 11:36 AM, Lance said:

That would be dependent on how many additional and trains are added in lieu of the truncated  service. If I recall correctly, the Williamsburg Bridge limits the amount of trains that can run on the Jamaica line.

CBTC-enabled cars can run on non-CBTC tracks. It's the opposite that's the problem.

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 .

[RR503]

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. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

11 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 .

Once most, if not all, lines have CBTC, how will Museum trains run?

[R68OnBroadway]

As for the CBTC-museum train fiasco, trips usually run weekends, so they can use the express track. As for areas west of Rawson, they can just keep the fixed block signalling infrastructure in place as a back-up if CBTC fails, and if it is kept in sync with CBTC, older trains can operate. They could also just switch off CBTC that day as operators are usually in the cab anyways.

[P3F]

Aren't they installing a new fixed block signal system in conjunction with CBTC on the Flushing line? I had heard they were doing this to avoid the fiascoes the  has where the line has to essentially not run whenever something goes wrong with CBTC.

[R68OnBroadway]

10 minutes ago, P3F said:

Aren't they installing a new fixed block signal system in conjunction with CBTC on the Flushing line? I had heard they were doing this to avoid the fiascoes the  has where the line has to essentially not run whenever something goes wrong with CBTC.

They better be. They should have a backup system that can take over during scenarios such as:

1. CBTC failure

2. Work car and intra-division movements

3. During operation of museum trains

[subwaycommuter1983]

14 hours 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 .

It doesn't make any sense to cut service on one line to add service on another line. 

L train riders are just going to have to stick to transferring to the A, C, J, M, and Z to go to Manhattan. 

[Bosco]

14 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

They better be. They should have a backup system that can take over during scenarios such as:

1. CBTC failure

2. Work car and intra-division movements

3. During operation of museum trains

I don't know if it's a new system or he existing one, but the MTA has learned from removing the existing wayside infrastructure from the Canarsie Line.

The fixed-block signal system on the Flushing Line is here to stay as a failsafe, for the reasons you mentioned.

 

[Fan Railer]

... all CBTC installation post Canarsie is designed to accommodate non-CBTC-compatible equipment running with 5-min interval buffers ahead and behind using wayside equipment. I really don't know how people would think there would be NO way to run C-division moves over CBTC territory. Additionally, I don't know how any of this has to do with the R179.

[subwaycommuter1983]

2 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

... all CBTC installation post Canarsie is designed to accommodate non-CBTC-compatible equipment running with 5-min interval buffers ahead and behind using wayside equipment. I really don't know how people would think there would be NO way to run C-division moves over CBTC territory. Additionally, I don't know how any of this has to do with the R179.

I agree. At this point we need to focus on the issues with the r179's that may affect construction on the Canarsie tunnel and the retirement of the r42s and r32s.