SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[RandomRider0101]

59 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Supposedly the R142 and R142A are both getting overhauled/upgraded soon as discussed here. But the last update in that thread was from 2020, and I don't think the MTA has released any more updates about the status of the project.

Do you mind describing or providing any examples of this, as I have never noticed this in any videos of R142a's.

If you're watching videos of them, you may not catch the bucking; but you would definitely catch the screeching, as it is very audible when it happens.

You would probably have to be on the train to feel the bucking as it happens. I'm not sure if you're from NYC, as your username possibly indicates otherwise.

[texassubwayfan555]

I have not heard the screeching in any of the videos I have watched, so I was asking if you could find a video of it (and/or the scraping and grinding sound). And what exactly causes screeching brakes?

38 minutes ago, RandomRider0101 said:

I'm not sure if you're from NYC

No, I am not from NYC and have never visited (I hope to one day), I am from Houston (pronounced hew-stun) Texas and am just interested in and now a bit about the subway.

[mrsman]

On 9/8/2022 at 3:34 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Number 4 is the best service plan IMHO. Number 3 is basically the MTA's current plan, which will leave the SAS south of 72nd with much less frequent service, though not as bad as in Number 2's  plan. At least in Number 1, you can have frequent service with both the  and  for most of 2nd Ave. But I'd much rather leave the 2010-16 Broadway service pattern in the scrap heap of subway service plans where it belongs. Broadway was a complete shit show during those years with both the 34th and Prince switches in regular use. Let's not revisit that again. 

I think if there's a 63rd St-SAS service, it should run express alongside the . So perhaps

 via 63rd and Queens Blvd express with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center.* The  would remain unchanged.

  via 53rd and Queens Blvd local, with both turning at 71st-Continental and the  continuing to South Brooklyn via the  line.

 rerouted to Astoria. In order for it to have a yard at one end, either build connecting tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to 38th Street Yard in South Brooklyn, or do the Vanshnook reroute proposal like so,

Deinterlining with One Switch

*However, if the  replaces the , then it has to run 10-car trains, which would require lengthening the current  platforms in Brooklyn and South Queens to accommodate 10-car trains. So one possible way around that could be to run the  as the 63rd-SAS service and run the  from Essex all the way up 2nd Ave. I think you could get away with 8-car  trains if it's running alongside the  on upper 2nd Ave and the  on lower 2nd Ave.

This is all quite interesting.  I could see  service being a useful complement on a SAS service.

I, of course, like to see a more de-interlined system, particularly for the B division, so if I had to provide a link from M to Midtown somewhere, running M up SAS may be useful, if the following is done with the rest of the B division.

 Unchanged.

 168 St - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach.

 205 St - Concourse (rush hour express) - CPW express - 8 Av express - Euclid

 (Concourse rush hour local) [168 St other times] - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - [vanshnook's switch] - Bay Ridge

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 8 Av local - WTC

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 6 Av local - Culver

  96 St/2 Av - 2 Av - Williamsburg Bridge - Met Ave

 179 St - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express- Brighton express

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express - Brighton local 

 Astoria - 60 - Broadway local - 4 Av local - West End line

 96 St/2Av - 2 Av - Fulton Seaport

 57 St/6 Av - 6 Av local - Culver express

So a brief explanation.  The Brooklyn routings of BDNQR trains are in line with the vanshnook plan of deinterlining DeKalb and the Broadway line with the addition of a switch on the 4 Av line just south of 36 St station.  This allows Bay Ridge trains to have access to the Concourse yard via 6 Av and Astoria trains access to CI yard via the West End line.  All trains going through the DeKalb station are no longer intermingled since all Brighton trains head for Broadway express, all 4 Av express trains head for 6 Av express, and all 4 Av local trains head to the Montague tunnel and Broadway local.  At the same time, Broadway service is separated since all Broadway locals head to Astoria and all Broadway expresses head to 63rd st tunnel.

As Broadway trains take up all the capacity of 63rd st tunnel, we no longer have 6 Av trains using that tunnel, so some 6 Av trains, represented by  simply terminate at 57/6 Av.  57/6 Av will be a part time station, as  will be a part time service, only serving as an express supplement for the southern portion of during the busiest times.

and  service the whole SAS line north of Houston St station.  The key problem with SAS is that it has poor connections to much of the rest of the system.  If it is infeasible to route  onto the Nassau tracks south of Chambers, then at the very least there should be a  station that is connected with the main Fulton St station so that  passengers can transfer to all of the trains that are served there, and vice versa.  Likewise,  doesn't have an easy connection to any part of Midtown, other than the far east side, so at a minimum, better connections need to be made with the Lexington stations at 42nd and 51/53 st to provide access to central and western midtown.  These connections create connections to   for both  and .  

I also envision a great Northeast Midtown station complex (maybe known as Bloomingdale's transfer).  The existing  station at 59th/Lex will connect with the  station at 60th/Lex which will connect with a   station that runs from 59th to 61st which will connect with the 63rd/Lex station that will service  and  trains.  This is the first CBD station for every subway coming from the Upper East Side and most of Queens*  and will allow access to SAS, Lexington, or Broadway stations in Midtown.  A station complex like this could easily be the second or third busiest station in the entire system, since it will facilitate so many transfers.

* most of Queens:  Astoria line passengers have direct access to this station complex.  A good number of  line passengers will transfer at 74 St or QBP to trains with access to the station complex.  The new QBL expresses,  and  will have access to this station complex.  QBL local passengers who transfer to the express at Roosevelt will also have access to the station complex, but not those who board west of Roosevelt or who decide not to transfer to the express.  But those Queens passengers will have access to   at 53rd street station.

 

 

 

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 hours ago, mrsman said:

This is all quite interesting.  I could see  service being a useful complement on a SAS service.

So a brief explanation.  The Brooklyn routings of BDNQR trains are in line with the vanshnook plan of deinterlining DeKalb and the Broadway line with the addition of a switch on the 4 Av line just south of 36 St station.  This allows Bay Ridge trains to have access to the Concourse yard via 6 Av and Astoria trains access to CI yard via the West End line.  All trains going through the DeKalb station are no longer intermingled since all Brighton trains head for Broadway express, all 4 Av express trains head for 6 Av express, and all 4 Av local trains head to the Montague tunnel and Broadway local.  At the same time, Broadway service is separated since all Broadway locals head to Astoria and all Broadway expresses head to 63rd st tunnel.

As Broadway trains take up all the capacity of 63rd st tunnel, we no longer have 6 Av trains using that tunnel, so some 6 Av trains, represented by  simply terminate at 57/6 Av.  57/6 Av will be a part time station, as  will be a part time service, only serving as an express supplement for the southern portion of during the busiest times.

and  service the whole SAS line north of Houston St station.  The key problem with SAS is that it has poor connections to much of the rest of the system.  If it is infeasible to route  onto the Nassau tracks south of Chambers, then at the very least there should be a  station that is connected with the main Fulton St station so that  passengers can transfer to all of the trains that are served there, and vice versa.  Likewise,  doesn't have an easy connection to any part of Midtown, other than the far east side, so at a minimum, better connections need to be made with the Lexington stations at 42nd and 51/53 st to provide access to central and western midtown.  These connections create connections to   for both  and .  

I also envision a great Northeast Midtown station complex (maybe known as Bloomingdale's transfer).  The existing  station at 59th/Lex will connect with the  station at 60th/Lex which will connect with a   station that runs from 59th to 61st which will connect with the 63rd/Lex station that will service  and  trains.  This is the first CBD station for every subway coming from the Upper East Side and most of Queens*  and will allow access to SAS, Lexington, or Broadway stations in Midtown.  A station complex like this could easily be the second or third busiest station in the entire system, since it will facilitate so many transfers.

* most of Queens:  Astoria line passengers have direct access to this station complex.  A good number of  line passengers will transfer at 74 St or QBP to trains with access to the station complex.  The new QBL expresses,  and  will have access to this station complex.  QBL local passengers who transfer to the express at Roosevelt will also have access to the station complex, but not those who board west of Roosevelt or who decide not to transfer to the express.  But those Queens passengers will have access to   at 53rd street station.

 

Sorry…I had to cut out some of your post so I could have enough bullets for my response (I think 75 is still the limit per post, including bullets from quoted posts). 

The problem with sending both the  and  via 63rd and QBL express is that the tunnel wasn’t designed for Broadway service to go that way, but rather to upper 2nd Ave. So you’d either have to have all  trains negotiate the existing crossover switches (which I’ve read are low-speed) to enter Lex-63rd on the side currently used by the  - which will put a limit on the number of tph that can run there - or spend $$$$ to reconfigure the tracks so the  can straight-rail through Lex-63rd with fewer limits on tph.

This is why I’m more in favor of leaving the  on 2nd Ave if we ever get to Phase 3. So, for QBL, this would be a preference for an  and  local to FH via 53rd and an  and  express to Jamaica via 63rd with the  serving as the “spine” SAS line and the  being rerouted to Astoria. This would also allow the  to function as a “real service,” which can also operate in Brooklyn express along the  line. Though it would also likely force the  to be reduced to a part-time service that overlays the  in Queens and the  in Manhattan and Brooklyn, with a local-express merge at 57th (please, for the love of God, not at 34th or Prince!).

Wallyhorse did bring up an interesting point about the possibility of running 9-car  trains, which I’ll address below. I also agree with doing an  station at 59th-61st and 2nd to connect with the  and . I strongly feel the MTA not planning a station there is a big oversight. But then again, that’s maybe because they don’t really want to build a full length SAS.

On 9/10/2022 at 5:25 PM, Wallyhorse said:

One thing to remember:

You might need to move the switches into Metropolitan Avenue to extend that station to 600' feet as part of a longer-term plan to do that with ALL stations in the Eastern Division.  Short-term, that would I think allow for nine-car trains on the  between Metropolitan and Essex since the other stations used to handle eight-car trains of Standards that were 67' feet or 536' total.  That might allow a 2nd Avenue  to run the proposed route to 63rd and with the  to Queens Boulevard while the  becomes a local to 71-Continental at all times (this  as I would do it would run to Archer Avenue at all times).  

But I think you might have to move that switch even if you wanted to do 9-car  trains. And 9-car  trains would still be a 10 percent service cut for Archer Ave riders versus the current  trains. Unless you run it more frequently. But the awkward crossover location at between Parsons and Sutphin-Archer, the sharp curves on both sides of the Willy B, and the flat junction with the  at Myrtle will prevent running a more frequent . 

This is why I suggested running the  into Queens via 63rd. The  can run to/from Archer and still continue all the way down to Lower Manhattan with 10-car trains, thus no cut in service. And I do think you can get away with 9-car  trains on SAS from 125th to the LES (at least initially), since they can be supplemented by 10-car  trains from 125th to 72nd and 10-car  trains from 59th to Houston. 

Edited September 11, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

13 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But I think you might have to move that switch even if you wanted to do 9-car  trains. And 9-car  trains would still be a 10 percent service cut for Archer Ave riders versus the current  trains. Unless you run it more frequently. But the awkward crossover location at between Parsons and Sutphin-Archer, the sharp curves on both sides of the Willy B, and the flat junction with the  at Myrtle will prevent running a more frequent . This is why I suggested running the  into Queens via 63rd. The  can run to/from Archer and still continue all the way down to Lower Manhattan with 10-car trains, thus no cut in service. And I do think you can get away with 9-car  trains on SAS from 125th to the LES, since they can be supplemented by 10-car  trains from 125th to 72nd and 10-car  trains from 59th to Houston. 

You would have to move them anyway at Metropolitan, which is why I would do it to set that station up for 600' trains as the first of a longer-term plan to at least have all current stations in northern Brooklyn (including the Broadway portion shared with the and  along with Essex Street in Manhattan) be 600' for 10 cars.   Otherwise, yes, you could have the go to Queens and the  and go to 125-Lex.

[Kamen Rider]

They are not going to reconfigure the old BMT East for 10 car trains. Give that up already.

 

This is the thing with your ideas. They never consider how we operate. 

 

For example. We would need to build a brand new car wash, as the wash at Canarsie Yard can't do 10 cars.

Many of the yard tracks at all three East yards would foul. At Canarsie, only the 5 yard tracks closest to the station platform could hold 10 at their current lengths. 

East New York Shop can't hold 10 car trains and the building can't be lengthened. 

 

We would need to completely rebuild multiple crew offices and towers. Canarsie, Metropolitan, Broadway Junction. 

[RandomRider0101]

7 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

They are not going to reconfigure the old BMT East for 10 car trains. Give that up already.

 

This is the thing with your ideas. They never consider how we operate. 

 

For example. We would need to build a brand new car wash, as the wash at Canarsie Yard can't do 10 cars.

Many of the yard tracks at all three East yards would foul. At Canarsie, only the 5 yard tracks closest to the station platform could hold 10 at their current lengths. 

East New York Shop can't hold 10 car trains and the building can't be lengthened. 

 

We would need to completely rebuild multiple crew offices and towers. Canarsie, Metropolitan, Broadway Junction. 

So basically it would be too difficult to convert the BMT East to 10-cars, and therefore not worth the effort?

I recall someone mentioning the BMT East, and wondering why it hasn't been upgraded to 10-car trains yet. Now after seeing this post, I know why things are the way they are currently.

In any case I see the  as the line that is most likely to be upgraded to 10-cars, since it runs entirely within itself and has the highest ridership as well; but if it isn't possible, then it isn't possible.

Anyways thanks for sharing.

[R32 3838]

 

On 9/11/2022 at 8:50 AM, mrsman said:

This is all quite interesting.  I could see  service being a useful complement on a SAS service.

I, of course, like to see a more de-interlined system, particularly for the B division, so if I had to provide a link from M to Midtown somewhere, running M up SAS may be useful, if the following is done with the rest of the B division.

 Unchanged.

 168 St - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach.

 205 St - Concourse (rush hour express) - CPW express - 8 Av express - Euclid

 (Concourse rush hour local) [168 St other times] - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - [vanshnook's switch] - Bay Ridge

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 8 Av local - WTC

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 6 Av local - Culver

  96 St/2 Av - 2 Av - Williamsburg Bridge - Met Ave

 179 St - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express- Brighton express

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express - Brighton local 

 Astoria - 60 - Broadway local - 4 Av local - West End line

 96 St/2Av - 2 Av - Fulton Seaport

 57 St/6 Av - 6 Av local - Culver express

So a brief explanation.  The Brooklyn routings of BDNQR trains are in line with the vanshnook plan of deinterlining DeKalb and the Broadway line with the addition of a switch on the 4 Av line just south of 36 St station.  This allows Bay Ridge trains to have access to the Concourse yard via 6 Av and Astoria trains access to CI yard via the West End line.  All trains going through the DeKalb station are no longer intermingled since all Brighton trains head for Broadway express, all 4 Av express trains head for 6 Av express, and all 4 Av local trains head to the Montague tunnel and Broadway local.  At the same time, Broadway service is separated since all Broadway locals head to Astoria and all Broadway expresses head to 63rd st tunnel.

As Broadway trains take up all the capacity of 63rd st tunnel, we no longer have 6 Av trains using that tunnel, so some 6 Av trains, represented by  simply terminate at 57/6 Av.  57/6 Av will be a part time station, as  will be a part time service, only serving as an express supplement for the southern portion of during the busiest times.

and  service the whole SAS line north of Houston St station.  The key problem with SAS is that it has poor connections to much of the rest of the system.  If it is infeasible to route  onto the Nassau tracks south of Chambers, then at the very least there should be a  station that is connected with the main Fulton St station so that  passengers can transfer to all of the trains that are served there, and vice versa.  Likewise,  doesn't have an easy connection to any part of Midtown, other than the far east side, so at a minimum, better connections need to be made with the Lexington stations at 42nd and 51/53 st to provide access to central and western midtown.  These connections create connections to   for both  and .  

I also envision a great Northeast Midtown station complex (maybe known as Bloomingdale's transfer).  The existing  station at 59th/Lex will connect with the  station at 60th/Lex which will connect with a   station that runs from 59th to 61st which will connect with the 63rd/Lex station that will service  and  trains.  This is the first CBD station for every subway coming from the Upper East Side and most of Queens*  and will allow access to SAS, Lexington, or Broadway stations in Midtown.  A station complex like this could easily be the second or third busiest station in the entire system, since it will facilitate so many transfers.

* most of Queens:  Astoria line passengers have direct access to this station complex.  A good number of  line passengers will transfer at 74 St or QBP to trains with access to the station complex.  The new QBL expresses,  and  will have access to this station complex.  QBL local passengers who transfer to the express at Roosevelt will also have access to the station complex, but not those who board west of Roosevelt or who decide not to transfer to the express.  But those Queens passengers will have access to   at 53rd street station.

 

 

 

 

 

I said this on reedit and I'll say it on here. Sending the to Jamaica Center is a terrible idea. There is a reason why the was chosen. Plus the terminal can barely handle every train, what makes you think it can handle service and people in Jamaica wouldn't want the train there to begin with. It would be pointless as they'll lose their connection to the train.

 

Swapping the and northern terminals is also dumb. The goes to 179th for a reason since it uses the most cars in the entire NYCT system.

 

These ideas make no sense and all this does is create a bigger mess.

[Kamen Rider]

That’s how a lot of these threads work. People make changes for the sake of making changes, not considering what it does to the operational feng shui of the system.

[subway4832]

On 9/10/2022 at 10:40 PM, texassubwayfan555 said:

Supposedly the R142 and R142A are both getting overhauled/upgraded soon as discussed here. But the last update in that thread was from 2020, and I don't think the MTA has released any more updates about the status of the project.

Do you mind describing or providing any examples of this, as I have never noticed this in any videos of R142a's.

I read about this a while ago, I think this project is dead in the water. Considering how cash strapped they are, i'd be shocked if they're going to bother setting aside funding to upgrade them or just wait until the R262's come in and phase them out altogether. 

[Kamen Rider]

The 262s are to replace the 62s. If you think we're cash strapped enough to not overhaul the 142s, what makes you think we can afford to junk rolling stock that's only halfway through it's useful life, leaving us to have to replace the entire mainline IRT fleet by the mid 2060s/2070s.

 

 

[texassubwayfan555]

Yes, The R142/As are only around 20 years old, halfway through the 40 year lifespan of a subway car. This would be a good time for them to get a "mid life refurbishment". If there is any rolling stock the MTA should be planning to replace, it's the R68/A.

[Lawrence St]

11 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

I said this on reedit and I'll say it on here. Sending the to Jamaica Center is a terrible idea. There is a reason why the was chosen. Plus the terminal can barely handle every train, what makes you think it can handle service and people in Jamaica wouldn't want the train there to begin with. It would be pointless as they'll lose their connection to the train.

 

Swapping the and northern terminals is also dumb. The goes to 179th for a reason since it uses the most cars in the entire NYCT system.

 

These ideas make no sense and all this does is create a bigger mess.

The  uses the most cars in the system? What about the ?

[trainfan22]

1 hour ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Yes, The R142/As are only around 20 years old, halfway through the 40 year lifespan of a subway car. This would be a good time for them to get a "mid life refurbishment". If there is any rolling stock the MTA should be planning to replace, it's the R68/A.

They don't do mid life overhauls anymore, SMS every six years replaced that.

[texassubwayfan555]

When will one person operation be used more widely on the subway? Its used on almost all rapid transit systems around the world (And even in the US). It is obviously not unsafe as it would not be used in other places if it was dangerous.

[R32 3838]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The  uses the most cars in the system? What about the ?

The uses more trainsets than the . The uses a total of 40 trainsets during the PM rush while the uses about 52 (if i'm correct) trainsets during the rush.

 

1 hour ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

When will one person operation be used more widely on the subway? Its used on almost all rapid transit systems around the world (And even in the US). It is obviously not unsafe as it would not be used in other places if it was dangerous.

It won't work here like in other systems. It's better to have a C/R on the train than to have the T/O do everything. OPTO only works on shuttles or short lines like the during non peak hours.

[Calvin]

13 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

The uses more trainsets than the . The uses a total of 40 trainsets during the PM rush while the uses about 52 (if i'm correct) trainsets during the rush.

The total for the  overall that has Kings Hwy trips and 2  trips are at 46. 7 during the AM / 6 during the PM more from the  's total. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Calvin

[texassubwayfan555]

1 hour ago, R32 3838 said:

OPTO only works on shuttles or short lines

Why does everyone in here believe this? Transit can be and is operated safely with only one person on a train. Even old systems like the London Underground and the Chicago El use it, so why cant we do it in NYC?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

17 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Why does everyone in here believe this? Transit can be and is operated safely with only one person on a train. Even old systems like the London Underground and the Chicago El use it, so why cant we do it in NYC?

Chicago and London run much shorter trains than NYC, so OPTO is safer to do there. Yes, BART and WMATA run trains as long as ours with OPTO, but their stations are much newer than ours and were designed for OPTO right from the start. Even in Chicago, there are repeated calls for the CTA to return to TPTO, due to safety concerns on the trains themselves.

[texassubwayfan555]

What designs do these newer systems use? And if the MTA was not so dumb and bad at managing money, I would say they should install platform cameras to address safety concerns with one person operation.

[RandomRider0101]

13 hours ago, subway4832 said:

I read about this a while ago, I think this project is dead in the water. Considering how cash strapped they are, i'd be shocked if they're going to bother setting aside funding to upgrade them or just wait until the R262's come in and phase them out altogether. 

There isn't even gonna be enough R262s to replace the R142/As, so that's never happening. Plus they're not even that old, and they're needed. Do you ride the Lexington line during any time of the day? If so, you would know that it gets packed over there. We can't afford to cut any extra trains on the A-side right now; we already have a shortage on the B-side.

5 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Yes, The R142/As are only around 20 years old, halfway through the 40 year lifespan of a subway car. This would be a good time for them to get a "mid life refurbishment". If there is any rolling stock the MTA should be planning to replace, it's the R68/A.

 

4 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

They don't do mid life overhauls anymore, SMS every six years replaced that.

@texassubwayfan555 didn't say 'overhaul', he said 'refurbishment'. I think he's referring to what the R62As got a few years ago.

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The  uses the most cars in the system? What about the ?

 

2 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

The uses more trainsets than the . The uses a total of 40 trainsets during the PM rush while the uses about 52 (if i'm correct) trainsets during the rush.

 

It won't work here like in other systems. It's better to have a C/R on the train than to have the T/O do everything. OPTO only works on shuttles or short lines like the during non peak hours.

 

2 hours ago, Calvin said:

The total for the  overall that has Kings Hwy trips and 2  trips are at 46. 7 during the AM / 6 during the PM more from the  's total. 

@Lawrence St Yes the  uses more trains than the , but they use 46 not 52, like @Calvin said. @R32 3838 you must've counted the spare factor.

Edited September 13, 2022 by RandomRider0101

[texassubwayfan555]

By "refurbishment" I meant this project, which the consensus seems to say is dead.

[trainfan22]

@RandomRider0101 really guy? What an absurd nitpick. Ethier way the R62A never got an mid life refurbishment, they only got SMS every six years.

 

 

 

 

[trainfan22]

Gary, Keith and Ron now have automated announcements on the train! Just heard it just now, as a Mets fan, I was happy to hear them on the subway, best announce team in baseball

[texassubwayfan555]

6 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Mets

Booo! Astros for the win!