SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[darkstar8983]

1 minute ago, Lex said:

Or we could just do what we've done prior to the past decade and just serve the entire system. (Hell, noisy as it is, Chicago has a plan to keep trains and passengers moving.)

I think its a safety issue when people slip in the snow, and to prevent them from slipping onto the tracks because they are not cleaned on a minute-by-minute basis.

[MHV9218]

Detail I noticed going through some old photos (@Union Tpke, you might be interested):

- lower-level W4 received new Vignelli black-on-white Unimark signs as earlier as spring 1968, possibly 1967 (in time for the Chrystie changes and Grand's opening);

- upper-level W4 received those signs by spring 1969 - rest of the 8th Ave probably around this time, but not all the way up;

- 125-145th never received these signs, only 'halfway' signs with white modules for bullets and white-on-black otherwise by the mid-1970s.

No new pillar signs on 8th Avenue until ~1981, when black-on-white enamel signs were installed (like 72nd and 135th had until recently). Exception for Chambers.

And it turns out that 71st-Continental actually received Unimark Vignelli signs in 1968-1969. I had no idea any Queens stations received these signs. Looks to be a sign for the EE and GG together. Credit to the late Joe Testagrose:

[NewFlyer 230]

Did the MTA really propose to have weekday  train service run via 53rd street and  trains run via 63rd? I think a major plus to this is that all express service would serve Lexington Ave, and it eliminates the delays that happen at Queens Plaza and 36th street with trains crossing in front of one another. 
 

The only issue would be that Lexington Ave/53rd street would be even more of a sardine can during rush hours. I know the  and  served the station together for decades so I suppose it could work again if the MTA really wanted it to. I just wonder how the  would do if it went via 63rd street. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

32 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Oh boy I can imagine people saying this if this happens 

"what if we extend the   to Jamaica Center from 71 Ave so it can be on both the lower level and the upper level at Sutphin and Parson Archer!"

Believe me, I know...

 

[Bay Ridge Express]

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well this thread I made in 2017 didn’t age too well. (Even though we’ve only just entered the 2nd month of 2021)

 

Welp, you got a 4 out of 8. In some contexts, that's considered passing.

[Lex]

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I think its a safety issue when people slip in the snow, and to prevent them from slipping onto the tracks because they are not cleaned on a minute-by-minute basis.

And that's not an issue in Chicago?

[Bay Ridge Express]

Btw, was the SIR just running normally today? Nothing was posted on the  website.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Bay Ridge Express

[Lex]

3 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Oh boy I can imagine people saying this if this happens 

"what if we extend the   to Jamaica Center from 71 Ave so it can be on both the lower level and the upper level at Sutphin and Parson Archer!"

Look, I'll admit that I find the thought of a theoretical service of the sort amusing, but in practice, that's something that would need to be reserved for particularly extreme circumstances.

[Deucey]

36 minutes ago, Lex said:

And that's not an issue in Chicago?

Probably not, but aside from being on a lake and not an ocean where wind gusts and marine layers affect things, CTA is a better run organization with better maintenance-of-way and facility practices.

[Lawrence St]

Why is the (SIR) exempt from all system wide subway changes? It's not affected by the overnight closure, closure of outdoor service during the winter storm, etc etc.

[Deucey]

30 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Why is the (SIR) exempt from all system wide subway changes? It's not affected by the overnight closure, closure of outdoor service during the winter storm, etc etc.

The rules apply to ; Staten Island is SIRTOA - legally a different organization.

Same reason why LIRR runs 24/7.

[Maxwell179]

Would it be possible to connect the tracks at Fulton St  to the local tracks at Atlantic Av  or are the two stations too close together ? ( hypothetical question )

Edited February 2, 2021 by Maxwell179

[Storm]

1 hour ago, Maxwell179 said:

Would it be possible to connect the tracks at Fulton St  to the local tracks at Atlantic Av  or are the two stations too close together ? ( hypothetical question )

I'd say the tracks would be too far apart (looking at the map)

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Maxwell179 said:

Would it be possible to connect the tracks at Fulton St  to the local tracks at Atlantic Av  or are the two stations too close together ? ( hypothetical question )

Given the sea of tracks over there, I don't think you'd be able to.

Even if it were possible, I don't see the benefit.

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, Maxwell179 said:

Would it be possible to connect the tracks at Fulton St  to the local tracks at Atlantic Av  or are the two stations too close together ? ( hypothetical question )

The Fulton St  tracks are adjacent to the Lafayette Avenue  station tracks. The next set of tracks are the Brighton  tracks under the IRT tracks at Atlantic Avenue  before you reach the Fourth Avenue  lines trackage, IIRC. Remember that the LIRR tracks are also next to the IRT tracks, too. Too close actually applies to my first example as the stations are physically next to each other underground and at street level. I hope that I’ve answered your question. Carry on.

[Vulturious]

19 hours ago, Stormxx said:

So if the  would terminate at whitehall and the  would run via the  to Bay Ridge full time? Good idea. Maybe the  could run via the  from delancey-essex to West 8th St full time. There needs to be another line running via Culver, because many people ride the  every day. Bring back the R32's, put 'em on the  and . Take the 179's from the , (3010-3049 and 3238-3327) and bring them to Coney Island. Also, take 80% of the 160a-1's from ENY and bring em to coney. That should be enough for the . One last problem, 4 car vs 5 car units. The  is 4 car, while the  is 5 car, so the  would have to be a little short in train length.

That is impossible to run the  via the  from Delancey-Essex to West 8 St which just brings up a good question, why West 8 St of all places on Culver? The platform for Nassau platform at Essex is perpendicular to the platform for the , it would be way too tight of a curve for the  to run along Culver anyways coming from either Williamsburg Bridge or from Broad St. Even if the  were to run along Culver, what would make people take it? Just because it runs to Manhattan doesn't mean people would prefer that line over the  regardless if the  were to run local on Culver or not. Yes, I do agree the that Culver should have another line running, but it cannot be the  since I already mentioned it would be impossible for a start as well as the  not going towards midtown Manhattan. And that brings me to my next question, why West 8 St? You cannot terminate the  over there because you would interfere with the  trying to terminate. The  already has issues terminating at Coney, sending the  full time as well would just make it much more worse. Giving the  all the R160A-1's from ENY would mean less trains for the , , and  to use, especially for the  because it is based out of ENY as well as running only R160A-1's. Bringing them to Coney Island as well wouldn't work because Coney Island Yard already has to deal with the , , , , and . 

The R32's are way too old to be running again, they are kept only for reserves. It's better to keep them on the  and  because they are outside most of the time anyways, having them on the  would put more of a strain since they do not operate well in tunnels. Taking the R179's away from the  and  wouldn't do them good either since now you're basically reducing the  and  reliability by keeping them with trains that are decades old.  

[Vulturious]

20 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I can't say for sure. But the factory-new R188s were built after the R143s and R160s were and by the same company, so some modularity should have been built in. Not to mention they were able to refit the former R142As with the CBTC technology. They also replaced the R44s and R46s' side roll signs with digital destination signs in GOH. With that in mind, I can't imagine how replacing the R142/R142A digital signs with newer ones would be an insurmountable task. Besides, a few converted R188s did get side digital signs that look very similar to the R143/R160 models. 

There isn't a "plain old"  train, although some PM rush hour put-ins at Broadway Junction that travel down to Broad Street are signed as  and make all stops to Broad. The northbound  runs express between Marcy and Myrtle at 2 PM. 

There was a big reason to move the  to 6th Avenue - money. The State was broke in 2009-10, as a result of the sub-prime mortgage economic crisis. Believe it or not, the first proposed service cuts plan in 2009, called for something similar to what you suggested in your a) , except it would have retained the  as it was and the  would have terminated at Chambers on weekdays and remained the same at other times (shuttle between Metropolitan and Myrtle).

 

As a former QBL rider who still occasionally rode it until last March, I can tell you QBL already did not have decent service pre-pandemic. Taking away the  and leaving just the  as the local in Queens is not going to go well. It's true that many people don't ride the full horseshoe  route, but the same could be said for just about every subway route. And if we want to build reliance on the SAS, then we should increase Broadway service, rather than create a new merge at Lex-63rd between the F, M and Q.

I used to ride the  regularly on QBL from 2012-15. It seemed to handle rush hour on QBL pretty fine to me. Not much worse than the V and certainly better than the G.

Terminating the  at Whitehall will make it better. Then, either have a full time  or a full time  replace the  in Brooklyn. We had a whole long discussion about this in 2019.

If the , then run it to/from Broadway Junction. Run the  peak express between Bway Jct and Marcy. Extend the  to South Brooklyn to supplement the  on weekdays.

If the , then run it as the sole Astoria service and reroute the  to 2nd Ave alongside the . 

 

But we can’t give everyone a one-seat ride the subway. Even if there are a lot of people Ubering from the UES/Yorkville to Williamsburg or the LES, the subway isn’t going to beat Uber by trying to be Uber. Definitely not during its highest ridership periods. There would to many merging delays, which will eventually lead to signal and switch problems.

Truncating the  at Whitehall is something I think all of us, if not most of us, would really like as this would allow for more reliability. If the  were to be extended to South Brooklyn, I'd have it run along West End to Bay Parkway the old  made because West End needs the extra service. This would also work better as this doesn't just run only in downtown, but towards midtown and to Astoria, people would maybe want to use this as a 1 seat ride if they wanted to. Although that would be an issue because the  wouldn't help the  east of Broadway Junction unless it's only extended to Jamaica Center for rush hour service and then truncates at Broadway Junction other times. I think the  would be the sole train during weekdays, but weekends the  runs to Astoria, but I highly doubt that would work well since the  would be needing help and Astoria service would be reduced in a way. I would love to see how this plays out regardless though.

[Trainmaster5]

Instead of reinventing the wheel why not keep it simple?  from Continental to Whitehall.  and  to Astoria while sharing a fleet. QBL local has yard access and the Astoria lines have yard access at Coney Island. The  would be the old  . Problem solved. Why screw up the   for any reason? My take. YMMV. Carry on. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Trainmaster5
Additional thought

[Mtatransit]

20 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well this thread I made in 2017 didn’t age too well. (Even though we’ve only just entered the 2nd month of 2021)

 

I mean aleast some of them were done...

Too bad they only renovated Bedford Ave on the  

CBTC is in place on QBL

There is two  trips in each directions

Other than that...

Its the same old NYC Subway

 

What I didn't expect in 2020/2021

- No more

ITS SHOWTIME!

That is something I never thought would ever happen... not having them on the  between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza

 

[Vulturious]

3 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Instead of reinventing the wheel why not keep it simple?  from Continental to Whitehall.  and  to Astoria while sharing a fleet. QBL local has yard access and the Astoria lines have yard access at Coney Island. The  would be the old  . Problem solved. My take. YMMV. Carry on.

Well, there's still that issue about Bay Ridge technically, if you planned on having the old  route, the  would lose that direct access. It would definitely solve a lot of problems the current  has, but it doesn't solve all of them.

[Mtatransit]

8 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Well, there's still that issue about Bay Ridge technically, if you planned on having the old  route, the  would lose that direct access. It would definitely solve a lot of problems the current  has, but it doesn't solve all of them.

 fleet will be "swapped" with the  at Astoria- Ditmars so they will eventually get to a yard.

So each operator will presumably do a run on the  then switch to a  and do the return  to Ditmars and switch back to the  

40 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

 I'd have it run along West End to Bay Parkway the old  made because West End needs the extra service. 

I think the  only ran the old  to Bay Parkway because they had no where else to terminate them. As for service wise, it was pretty useless in Brooklyn. I mean it did provide some additional 4th Avenue local service to help out the  , that's about it. Back then people will wait for the  even if an  came first because  is an express and goes directly into Midtown. Either that or they just get off at 36th St and get the  .

Basically close to no one except a few people who work downtown would take the  into Manhattan. That route was the classic definition of a supplementary route

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mtatransit

[Storm]

If the  was to run to Bay Ridge via the  and if the  was cut back to Whitehall, the  wouldn't have direct access to Coney, which would be a problem. Anyways, to the Astoria Lines.  The 90 siemens that went to Jamaica for the Alstoms, are those only temporary? Because the  wouldn't have much spares to run on the lines. With the R46's crapping out, who knows? There may be a shortage of cars. If you'd want the  and  both to end at 96th st, that'd be a great idea, because of course everyone would want the  to become full time. One problem with that. COVID-19. There are not as many operators as before, so we'd have to wait until new operators to come in for that plan to even be thought of.

[Trainmaster5]

45 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

 fleet will be "swapped" with the  at Astoria- Ditmars so they will eventually get to a yard.

So each operator will presumably do a run on the  then switch to a  and do the return  to Ditmars and switch back to the  

I think the  only ran the old  to Bay Parkway because they had no where else to terminate them. As for service wise, it was pretty useless in Brooklyn. I mean it did provide some additional 4th Avenue local service to help out the  , that's about it. Back then people will wait for the  even if an  came first because  is an express and goes directly into Midtown. Either that or they just get off at 36th St and get the  .

Basically close to no one except a few people who work downtown would take the  into Manhattan. That route was the classic definition of a supplementary route

There’s no reason for a crew to make a trip on the other line at all. Your second point about the old M is on the money. Carry on.

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Well, there's still that issue about Bay Ridge technically, if you planned on having the old  route, the  would lose that direct access. It would definitely solve a lot of problems the current  has, but it doesn't solve all of them.

The only complaints about the  service usually have to do with the reliability south of 59th St down to the terminal at 95th St. I suspect the problem is caused by the QBL segment. Look back at archived news articles and such and you won’t see many, if any, complaints when the line ran to Astoria. I’m talking about pre-1967 and including  service to Whitehall. Mtatransit explained the yard access question and I added my own take. Carry on.

@Stormxx this post also applies to your idea.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Trainmaster5
Additional information

[Lawrence St]

1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

 fleet will be "swapped" with the  at Astoria- Ditmars so they will eventually get to a yard.

So each operator will presumably do a run on the  then switch to a  and do the return  to Ditmars and switch back to the  

I think the  only ran the old  to Bay Parkway because they had no where else to terminate them. As for service wise, it was pretty useless in Brooklyn. I mean it did provide some additional 4th Avenue local service to help out the  , that's about it. Back then people will wait for the  even if an  came first because  is an express and goes directly into Midtown. Either that or they just get off at 36th St and get the  .

Basically close to no one except a few people who work downtown would take the  into Manhattan. That route was the classic definition of a supplementary route

What about 9th Avenue?