R179 Discussion Thread

[biGC323232]

27 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

The shouldn't go to Ozone Park until both and are Fulton Expresses, ideally with the taking over the Fulton Local via an extension of SAS phase 4.

Just because the and merge twice doesn't mean we should add a third bottleneck.

Sending  trains to ozone park is not that bad of an idea...As a matter of fact they should look further into sending the  there...Most of the time .  don't even meet at the 2 bottlenecks...And how is the  going to fulton...What about 2 av

[officiallyliam]

50 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Sending  trains to ozone park is not that bad of an idea...As a matter of fact they should look further into sending the  there...Most of the time .  don't even meet at the 2 bottlenecks...And how is the  going to fulton...What about 2 av

But at rush hour they do meet at both Canal and Hoyt frequently, and delays on line can easily cascade to the other. Throw into the mix another merge between the and at Euclid, plus the merge at Liberty Junction with the Rockaway branch, as well as the existing merge between the and the , and you have a recipe for a service where minor delays will be frequent, far-reaching, and will easily spread beyond their origin. As I said earlier, the precedent that exists for merging doesn't mean we should add more of it.

As for the , what I meant was that Phase 4 of the SAS should continue from Hanover Square under the East River, connecting to the Fulton local tracks just west of Hoyt. This would mean that the would be the Fulton local service, with the and taking over the express line, and eliminating the Hoyt merge. At this point, I would propose sending the to Ozone Park and the to the Rockaways.

[kosciusko]

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

As for the , what I meant was that Phase 4 of the SAS should continue from Hanover Square under the East River, connecting to the Fulton local tracks just west of Hoyt. This would mean that the would be the Fulton local service,

That's going to be one hell of a project given the mess of track that is Downtown Bklyn. I'm not even sure something like that would be possible (given current tech) without any serious demolition.

[subwaycommuter1983]

14 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

Sending  trains to ozone park is not that bad of an idea...As a matter of fact they should look further into sending the  there...Most of the time .  don't even meet at the 2 bottlenecks...And how is the  going to fulton...What about 2 av

Good to know that others agree with this.

What about the other idea of running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145th Street during the weekends, without making changes on the D train?

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Good to know that others agree with this.

What about the other idea of running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145th Street during the weekends, without making changes on the D train?

The  and  serve the same stations between Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center and 145th Street during weekday non-rush hours, with the exception of  trains serving local stations along CPW. Unless passengers boarding along the Brighton are seeking the Grand Concourse, I'm not sure what else would reasonably justify that.

[P3F]

35 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The  and  serve the same stations between Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center and 145th Street during weekday non-rush hours, with the exception of  trains serving local stations along CPW. Unless passengers boarding along the Brighton are seeking the Grand Concourse, I'm not sure what else would reasonably justify that.

More service on CPW, 6th Av, and Brighton. 

[R68OnBroadway]

18 minutes ago, P3F said:

More service on CPW, 6th Av, and Brighton. 

CPW does have ridiculous headways on weekends.

[subwaycommuter1983]

5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

CPW does have ridiculous headways on weekends.

And these long headways causes overcrowding on the 1 train. Also, there's overcrowding on 81st street due to those long headways.

27 minutes ago, P3F said:

More service on CPW, 6th Av, and Brighton. 

I agree. Also, more service in the Bronx, reduce overcrowding on the 4 train.

 

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

The  and  serve the same stations between Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center and 145th Street during weekday non-rush hours, with the exception of  trains serving local stations along CPW. Unless passengers boarding along the Brighton are seeking the Grand Concourse, I'm not sure what else would reasonceably justify that.

Running the B to the Bronx all day during the weekdays would reduce bottleneck on 145th street and eliminate confusion on B train riders that are unsure whether the train is going to the Bronx or not.

[S78 via Hylan]

16 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

Sending  trains to ozone park is not that bad of an idea...As a matter of fact they should look further into sending the  there...Most of the time .  don't even meet at the 2 bottlenecks..

It’s been discussed numerous times why this wouldn’t work. Most people here think about what looks good on paper, but don’t take available fleets, assignments, crews, merges, and budgeting  into consideration.

Edited March 18, 2018 by S78 via Hylan

[subwaycommuter1983]

33 minutes ago, S78 via Hylan said:

It’s been discussed numerous times why this wouldn’t work. Most people here think about what looks good on paper, but don’t take available fleets, assignments, crews, merges, and budgeting  into consideration.

Didn't know that this was discussed in previous posts. 

The C in the past has run past Euclid. 

Also, it is confusing to take the A past Euclid avenue,  especially if the conductors don't make the announcement and many times the yellow screens on the r46 don't show where it's going. That's another reason why the 5 car r179's should run on the A.

[VIP]

4 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Didn't know that this was discussed in previous posts. 

The C in the past has run past Euclid. 

Also, it is confusing to take the A past Euclid avenue,  especially if the conductors don't make the announcement and many times the yellow screens on the r46 don't show where it's going. That's another reason why the 5 car r179's should run on the A.

The signage problem with the  will always be problematic no matter what because riders don’t listen (because of ear phones) and most riders don’t read...

[biGC323232]

22 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

It’s been discussed numerous times why this wouldn’t work. Most people here think about what looks good on paper, but don’t take available fleets, assignments, crews, merges, and budgeting  into consideration.

I was just throwing my opinion on they question....And the main reason is to why most of yall here thinks its not gonna work is because ppl dont want to lose they precious 1 seat express...Im the last 1 here that looks at paper and think things is gonna work....Quit frankly i could care less.......And by the way i wonder if the  looked into crews,merges,fleet,and budgeting When the  got extended to SF late nights  to church full time  to fulton wkends  to serve 6 av...You probably was the main 1 saying that wasnt gonna work...Now back to the R179 topic 

[officiallyliam]

40 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I was just throwing my opinion on they question....And the main reason is to why most of yall here thinks its not gonna work is because ppl dont want to lose they precious 1 seat express...Im the last 1 here that looks at paper and think things is gonna work....Quit frankly i could care less.......And by the way i wonder if the  looked into crews,merges,fleet,and budgeting When the  got extended to SF late nights  to church full time  to fulton wkends  to serve 6 av...You probably was the main 1 saying that wasnt gonna work...Now back to the R179 topic 

You wonder if the MTA looks into crew availability, merges, fleet availability, and budgeting when changing service patterns? They're the ones making the plan in the first place...

[subwaycommuter1983]

3 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

I was just throwing my opinion on they question....And the main reason is to why most of yall here thinks its not gonna work is because ppl dont want to lose they precious 1 seat express...Im the last 1 here that looks at paper and think things is gonna work....Quit frankly i could care less.......And by the way i wonder if the  looked into crews,merges,fleet,and budgeting When the  got extended to SF late nights  to church full time  to fulton wkends  to serve 6 av...You probably was the main 1 saying that wasnt gonna work...Now back to the R179 topic 

I know many people in ozone park may not be happy about losing express service. However, they will have a less confusing commute if the C is extended to Ozone park, which is only a few stops after Euclid. Remember, the C used to run past Euclid years ago.

A train riders will also have a less confusing commute if all A trains go to the Rockaways and if all 5 car r179's go to the A train in addition to the r211's.

I think this will work, especially, after the Canarsie tunnel work is complete and once the r211's are delivered. 

I also, think that running the B to the Bronx during the weekdays and running the B to 145 during the WEEKENDS will work as well. I already explained my reasons in this previous post:

On 3/18/2018 at 12:53 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

These long weekend headways on CPW causes overcrowding on the 1 train. Also, there's overcrowding on 81st street due to those long headways.

Also, more service in the Bronx, reducing overcrowding on the 4 train.

Running the B to the Bronx all day during the weekdays would reduce bottleneck on 145th street and eliminate confusion on B train riders that are unsure whether the train is going to the Bronx or not.

 

[Lance]

Not to drag this any more off-topic, but since this keeps being brought up, I might as well answer the query.

While it looks good on paper to extend the to Lefferts and sent all trains to the Rockaways, it will likely not work as intended. As per the MTA, such an extension will require more trains for the line. It will also double the amount of service along the Rockaways branch. While that may sound good (more service = happier customers), the Rockaways stations have the absolute lowest ridership of any station in present use. The eastern Pitkin stations don't fare much better. Is it a good use of resources to run all of these potentially empty trains when the present setup, while not perfect, is a better alternative than the proposed idea?

As for off-hours service, unless that route is short-turning somewhere, you are going to need serious justification along not only Central Park West, but 6th Avenue and the Brighton as well for the doubled service over present levels. It's a lot easier to justify adding more and trains to the schedule. It's much harder to justify an entirely different service.

[subwaycommuter1983]

28 minutes ago, Lance said:

Not to drag this any more off-topic, but since this keeps being brought up, I might as well answer the query.

While it looks good on paper to extend the to Lefferts and sent all trains to the Rockaways, it will likely not work as intended. As per the MTA, such an extension will require more trains for the line. It will also double the amount of service along the Rockaways branch. While that may sound good (more service = happier customers), the Rockaways stations have the absolute lowest ridership of any station in present use. The eastern Pitkin stations don't fare much better. Is it a good use of resources to run all of these potentially empty trains when the present setup, while not perfect, is a better alternative than the proposed idea?

As for off-hours service, unless that route is short-turning somewhere, you are going to need serious justification along not only Central Park West, but 6th Avenue and the Brighton as well for the doubled service over present levels. It's a lot easier to justify adding more and trains to the schedule. It's much harder to justify an entirely different service.

We're not going completely off topic. Service needs to be improved, especially in CPW and in Concourse/Jerome. How?? The MTA needs to figure this out. All we know is that the r179's, the r211's and the car replacements for the r68's will play a key role in these improvements.

Also, at this point the MTA should already be working on car orders to replace the r62's and r68's considering how long it's been taking for new subway cars to be tested and delivered and the r179's are a huge example of that.

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

We're not going completely off topic. Service needs to be improved, especially in CPW and in Concourse/Jerome. How?? The MTA needs to figure this out. All we know is that the r179's, the r211's and the car replacements for the r68's will play a key role in these improvements.

Also, at this point the MTA should already be working on car orders to replace the r62's and r68's considering how long it's been taking for new subway cars to be tested and delivered and the r179's are a huge example of that.

You can thank Bombardier for taking ridiculously long to weed out the issues plaguing the R179s. The order has been pushed back multiple times and I don't think the first 10-car R179 set (3010–3019) is even in passenger service yet, which is unbelievable, considering it's already been over a year since that set was delivered. I am more than content with the fact that the MTA has banned Bombardier from bidding on future contracts, because them saying "you'll receive your order in a year's time" really means "prepare to expect your order not only late, but with multiple bugs, only leading to additional delays." Imagine waiting for your pizza to be delivered, expecting a 30–45 minute arrival. When you hear your doorbell ring over 90 minutes later only to find out that they got your order wrong, you're going to be very upset and most likely won't buy from that pizzeria ever again. So goes the relationship between the MTA and Bombardier with respect to the R179 order. Lesson learned? Have a backup plan. I'd charge that pizzeria a penalty fee for not only taking more than twice the length of time they advised to deliver my pizza, but also because they got my order wrong as well. There's only so much error you should tolerate. Once that threshold is crossed, it's no longer you that's accountable!

Edited March 19, 2018 by AlgorithmOfTruth

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, Lance said:

As for off-hours service, unless that route is short-turning somewhere, you are going to need serious justification along not only Central Park West, but 6th Avenue and the Brighton as well for the doubled service over present levels. It's a lot easier to justify adding more and trains to the schedule. It's much harder to justify an entirely different service.

Full-length  trains on weekends (in the future or sooner or later) while still maintaining a 10 minute headway on the entire line in both directions is a start.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jemorie

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Full-length  trains on weekends (in the future or sooner or later) while still maintaining a 10 minute headway on the entire line in both directions is a start.

Unless we're talking rush hour, whether a train is 480' or 600' is irrelevant. People care about frequency much more than they do about capacity. That's why, for example, Delta/American/United/SW/etc fly a zillion flights from NYC-CHI per day on small planes rather than a few on larger ones. People like options, and they don't like to wait. 

[subwaycommuter1983]

39 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Unless we're talking rush hour, whether a train is 480' or 600' is irrelevant. People care about frequency much more than they do about capacity. That's why, for example, Delta/American/United/SW/etc fly a zillion flights from NYC-CHI per day on small planes rather than a few on larger ones. People like options, and they don't like to wait. 

Frequency is a huge issue with the C during the weekends along CPW. There's been instances where selected A or D trains have run local along CPW to compensate service gaps on the C.

Weekend local A and D trains on CPW is not the solution. 

Either the MTA adds more trains on the C or have the B run during the weekends to 145.

[RR503]

9 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Frequency is a huge issue with the C during the weekends along CPW. There's been instances where selected A or D trains have run local along CPW to compensate service gaps on the C.

Weekend local A and D trains on CPW is not the solution. 

Either the MTA adds more trains on the C or have the B run during the weekends to 145.

That's what I was saying. 

If flagging wasn't a thing, I'd have a minimum daytime headway on all lines (where operationally possible, ie not the Franklin shuttle) of eight minutes (7.5 tph). Flagging, of course, interferes with this by severely restricting track capacity, so the implementation of such a blanket solution would have to be paired with some ops changes. 

For CPW, your only option is making either the  or  local, or adding s. With the  being added to 6th soon, and construction flagging being such a capacity limiter, there simply isn't enough of a case for a weekend . That said, I think increasing weekday Concourse service (both the  and the ) needs to be done. If it wasn't for the fact that those two ran so infrequently, taking the  from points on the Concourse to an office on Madison Avenue would actually be faster than the , and thus would be able to attract riders away from it. Of course, you then run into issues with Dekalb, but let's remember that back in the '60s, we used to cram close to 60 trains per hour through that junction (not including Montague), and did so with few delays. If we just raised speed limits by a little bit, and coupled that with some smart dispatching practices (for example, automatically alternating switch positions, so that not all trains have to stop mid-interlocking), we could gain some of that capacity back. 

[Jchambers2120]

6 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Frequency is a huge issue with the C during the weekends along CPW. There's been instances where selected A or D trains have run local along CPW to compensate service gaps on the C.

Weekend local A and D trains on CPW is not the solution. 

Either the MTA adds more trains on the C or have the B run during the weekends to 145.

IMO it goes beyond weekends. The running 10 minute headways during rush hours is abysmal. Something like every 6-8 mins wouod be more viable IMO. Like Lance has pointed out it's easier to justify adding more service to a line than to downright add another (redundant) line. Unfortunately with the R179's the needs of service have changed with the becoming full length, so there won't be enough trains to increase service until the R211's come in later on down the road.

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Unless we're talking rush hour, whether a train is 480' or 600' is irrelevant. People care about frequency much more than they do about capacity. That's why, for example, Delta/American/United/SW/etc fly a zillion flights from NYC-CHI per day on small planes rather than a few on larger ones. People like options, and they don't like to wait. 

So? They're not gonna increase  service or run on the  on weekends just for Central Park West. The  can't always cater to riders' whims. The subway is a 24/7 operation and the tracks and signals, like the rolling stock itself, needs maintenance. That's when weekends or overnights come into play. Weekend ridership is lower than weekday ridership, period. How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line? Usually, the part-time lines on weekends get the short end of the stick in favor of the full-time lines.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[Jemorie]

7 minutes ago, Jchambers2120 said:

IMO it goes beyond weekends. The running 10 minute headways during rush hours is abysmal. Something like every 6-8 mins wouod be more viable IMO. Like Lance has pointed out it's easier to justify adding more service to a line than to downright add another (redundant) line. Unfortunately with the R179's the needs of service have changed with the becoming full length, so there won't be enough trains to increase service until the R211's come in later on down the road.

18 trains total aren't even enough to increase the  's rush hour headways and there isn't enough in the rolling stock for more rush hour service on the line yet...I doubt the R211s will fix that when there are other much more crowded lines in need of more service.

EDIT: I checked the MTA's trip planner and it says that the Cranberry Street Tubes sees a total of 26 trains an hour entering Fulton Street in the AM Rush. They can only add four more roundtrips to the (C), but otherwise, Cranberry can't physically handle a train more than 2 minutes apart, like any one-track train line also.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jemorie

[RR503]

8 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

So? They're not gonna increase  service or run on the  on weekends just for Central Park West. The  can't always cater to riders' whims. The subway is a 24/7 operation and the tracks and signals, like the rolling stock itself, needs maintenance. That's when weekends or overnights come into play. Weekend ridership is lower than weekday ridership, period. How much more frequent do you want the  to be when it's just a part-time line?

It's not just CPW. For the , it's 8th and Fulton too -- all growing markets, and all ones the MTA justifies not serving with its lack of service. I honestly can't believe they do not see the correlation between service and ridership -- especially when the IRT lines near Fulton, 8th and CPW are bursting at the seams. 

And yes, the subway is a 24/7 operation. But just because we have to do maintenance doesn't mean we have to sacrifice all sensibility in the name of SGR. There are so many things wrong with the way the MTA does work. Piggybacking projects doesn't seem like a concept they understand. Their flagging rules are, frankly, medieval -- trains on adjacent tracks shouldn't have to go all the way down to 10. If you fix those issues, and still can't add 1.5 trains per hour to the  line, then we can talk. Until then, its time the MTA did its job -- catering to its riders 'whims.'

Oh, and BTW, the  is essentially a part-time line too. Should we cut its frequency based on that fact?

13 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

18 trains total aren't even enough to increase the  's rush hour headways and there isn't enough in the rolling stock for more rush hour service on the line yet...

We're talking longer term here. Depending on what the TA decides to retire post-Canarsie, we could absolutely have the cars necessary to do these changes.