SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[CenSin]

The was built pretty much as a supplement service and a shuttle.

Not really. The way the tracks are built, you could pretty much expect the to be a first-class citizen. If the local tracks along Queens Boulevard and the Culver lines are any indication, the was supposed to be the local route. The was shoehorned in later and the now makes use of the slow ramps connecting the local tracks to the express tracks.

[Fresh Pond]

Interesting. So these cars were basically work motors for both NYCTA and LIRR. They could never get away with something like that today.

 

A somewhat related question: how were the R44s delivered via the LIRR? Where was (is?) the connection to the subway system?

They used the old Parkville junction as shown in the first picture. The LIRR Bay Ridge Branch had a connection around Avenue N and Mcdonald Av and ran along the street to Coney Island Yard.

 

They were pulled by diesels, and the Arnines (heavily modified of course) were used as adaptors, along with empty hopper cars. One end would have a standard knuckle couplers, and the other end had the Ohio Brass coupler for the 44s

[bobtehpanda]

Not really. The way the tracks are built, you could pretty much expect the to be a first-class citizen. If the local tracks along Queens Boulevard and the Culver lines are any indication, the was supposed to be the local route. The was shoehorned in later and the now makes use of the slow ramps connecting the local tracks to the express tracks.

 

That was the original plan, except it turned out no one actually wanted to use the like that, so they built the 60 St connection to relieve the express trains that everyone was transferring onto.

 

Keep in mind that the original plan for the was an elevated route connecting QBP with what is now the Franklin Av shuttle with service continuing to Brighton Beach. The was a bastardization of that route and the lower half of the Myrtle Av route.

[Around the Horn]

Nope, Most cars are coupled in sets now. FRA rules are a lot stricter and then there's that power incompatibility issue as well with the LIRR upgrading their power system..  Connections would have been at Linden or 36th street as was said above.

 

Didn't they car float the R44s or am I remembering something else?

[RailRunRob]

Didn't they car float the R44s or am I remembering something else?

Yep Floated to bush terminal then via NY&A to McDonald ave then onto CI. Via Parkville Jct   

[Lance]

That was the original plan, except it turned out no one actually wanted to use the like that, so they built the 60 St connection to relieve the express trains that everyone was transferring onto.

 

Keep in mind that the original plan for the was an elevated route connecting QBP with what is now the Franklin Av shuttle with service continuing to Brighton Beach. The was a bastardization of that route and the lower half of the Myrtle Av route.

Yeah, it's funny how riders at the local stations looking for service don't like how the only local service didn't actually run into Manhattan. For some strange reason, the IND really thought that idea would take off. After all, the original IND plan called for the AA* to be a Manhattan-only route and the   as the Fulton St local that never entered Manhattan. Had the original plan been enacted, local riders would've had to switch between the   and   at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

Regarding the planned routing of the Crosstown line vs. what was actually built, the IND could've still built the line as subway and connected it to the Franklin Ave shuttle. Had the line been constructed under Hooper St and Franklin Ave instead of Union Ave and Marcy Ave, it would've been a straight shot to the Frankie. Of course, since the IND wanted nothing to do with the BMT unless it involved recapturing lines built under the Dual Contracts, that would never have happened in the first place. In fact, if the IND actually wanted to build a comprehensive subway system instead of focusing on putting the competition out of business, the Crosstown would've had more transfer and track connections in the first place.

 

*Apparently I need to add an AA bullet smiley.

[Around the Horn]

In fact, if the IND actually wanted to build a comprehensive subway system instead of focusing on putting the competition out of business, the Crosstown would've had more transfer and track connections in the first place.

 

*Apparently I need to add an AA bullet smiley.

 

100% agree. Its a damn shame that the comprehensive plans were thought of second, and then had the worst luck in being proposed first, months before the Great Depression and second, months before World War II broke out...

 

Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that the IND was the best planned out of the three "companies" taking into account the spacious stations, flying junctions and the design of curves along the routes, unlike the IRT in particular and the BMT somewhat.

[Caelestor]

100% agree. Its a damn shame that the comprehensive plans were thought of second, and then had the worst luck in being proposed first, months before the Great Depression and second, months before World War II broke out...

 

Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that the IND was the best planned out of the three "companies" taking into account the spacious stations, flying junctions and the design of curves along the routes, unlike the IRT in particular and the BMT somewhat.

 

The original IRT subway was supposed to be run completely under Broadway, but was diverted to GCT and Park / Lafayette Aves to better serve the East Side due to complaints from property owners on Broadway south of 34 St. Had the entire line stayed under Broadway, I think the NYC subway would be better off as a whole today. The IRT did fix this inefficient route with the H system, and I think its only major mistake was building Rogers Junction without flying junctions.

 

The BMT's major design flaw was having all lines go through DeKalb Ave while not building it as a massive express station for transfers to all lines. In Manhattan, the Broadway line had to deal with the existing IRT system, both elevated and subway, which lead to the circuitous Lower Manhattan route. Then they got screwed by the IND building its own 8 Ave line instead of extending the Broadway Line express tracks up CPW.

 

The IND had a clear design language: only express services used the underwater tunnels, and local (double-letter) routes stayed mostly within their own boroughs, with some exceptions as the . In hindsight this did not actually reflect passenger behavior, especially for the Fulton and Queens Blvd lines. I also think building the 6 Ave subway instead of just doing a (albeit politically-challenging) takeover of PATH incurred too much debt on the system that has been the root of slow expansion post-WWII.

Edited December 15, 2016 by Caelestor

[CenSin]

The IND had a clear design language: only express services used the underwater tunnels, and local (double-letter) routes stayed mostly within their own boroughs, with some exceptions as the . In hindsight this did not actually reflect passenger behavior, especially for the Fulton and Queens Blvd lines. I also think building the 6 Ave subway instead of just doing a (albeit politically-challenging) takeover of PATH incurred too much debt on the system that has been the root of slow expansion post-WWII.

That design language, unfortunately, is now being outdone by emphasis on enormous station caverns and other trinkets—not the things that really matter like number of tracks. Credit is due though for the quality of the tracks they do build though. 63 Street is pretty well-done, and I’m sure 2 Avenue is too. The from 34 Street–Herald Square to Queens is a measurably better option than taking the , , or which crawls through tight switches and curves.

 

But delays are inevitable, and the new attitude of trimming costs by sacrificing flexibility is not good. Imagine some of the existing lines being double-tracked or without switches. Instead of reroutes, service would be halted or single-tracked until the problem was fixed. Customers looking for nearby lines would have to walk two or three avenues over for alternatives since the new attitude is to not build lines close to other lines.

[P3F]

I was on the downtown platform at Union Square at 9:45 AM today. An R68 came in on the express track, with rollsigns indicating that it was heading to Coney Island. After it left, an R160 headed to Gravesend-86 Street came in on the local track.

 

The R160's "Next Stop Is" display showed the train as heading "TO 86 ST". That could confuse people into thinking that it's going to 86 Street & 2 Avenue; if a program update is done, it should be changed to "TO GRAVESEND-86 ST".

[Lance]

There's always going to be the potential for confusion when it comes to stations with similar names. Riders have to pay attention. After all, if a southbound train is running to Brooklyn, how is it going to terminate at 86 Street on the 2nd Avenue line?

[Around the Horn]

There's always going to be the potential for confusion when it comes to stations with similar names. Riders have to pay attention. After all, if a southbound train is running to Brooklyn, how is it going to terminate at 86 Street on the 2nd Avenue line?

That's a good point but I still think "86 ST" could get confused with the Station particularly considering the shares track with the at that location. "GRAVESEND-86 ST" removes all doubt. Edited December 16, 2016 by Around the Horn

[Lance]

Thing is, the MTA removed all references to Gravesend starting in 2005 when the stopped using 86 Street as a terminal when the new Coney Island terminal opened. A few years ago, the original "Gravesend-86 St" announcement on the was switched out for the one used at 86 Street on the . There's that issue with consistency again...

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah, it's funny how riders at the local stations looking for service don't like how the only local service didn't actually run into Manhattan. For some strange reason, the IND really thought that idea would take off. After all, the original IND plan called for the AA* to be a Manhattan-only route and the   as the Fulton St local that never entered Manhattan. Had the original plan been enacted, local riders would've had to switch between the   and   at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

*Apparently I need to add an AA bullet smiley.

 

To be fair, when the original plans were drawn up (that the IND later bastardized), Brooklyn was still for all intents and purposes a separate city, and the overwhelming pull into Manhattan was not set in stone at that time. However conditions changed by the time they actually built the damn thing.

 

100% agree. Its a damn shame that the comprehensive plans were thought of second, and then had the worst luck in being proposed first, months before the Great Depression and second, months before World War II broke out...

 

Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that the IND was the best planned out of the three "companies" taking into account the spacious stations, flying junctions and the design of curves along the routes, unlike the IRT in particular and the BMT somewhat.

 

The spacious stations were essentially the reason why the Second System was never built; due to the massive overengineering, the First System (is that what it's called?) went ridiculously over budget and there was no money left for the second half. There is a reason why very few systems, even those with solid expansion plans, rarely build shells or anything of that sort.

 

Plus, the IND was ridiculously bad at predicting future travel demand; look at how underutilized West 4's middle mezzanine is.

 

The IND had a clear design language: only express services used the underwater tunnels, and local (double-letter) routes stayed mostly within their own boroughs, with some exceptions as the . In hindsight this did not actually reflect passenger behavior, especially for the Fulton and Queens Blvd lines. I also think building the 6 Ave subway instead of just doing a (albeit politically-challenging) takeover of PATH incurred too much debt on the system that has been the root of slow expansion post-WWII.

 

I don't think that a takeover of PATH would've worked (since PATH is IRT standard); the Sixth Av line should've been built under 5th, which would have been even more of a political lift.

[Caelestor]

I don't think that a takeover of PATH would've worked (since PATH is IRT standard); the Sixth Av line should've been built under 5th, which would have been even more of a political lift.

 

To clarify, I meant that the city should have bought PATH like the IRT and BMT. The money for the 6 Ave line could have been redirected to building the first phase of SAS so that the IND had an East Side line to complement the 8 Ave line. Meanwhile, PATH could have been extended up 6 Avenue, perhaps terminating at 57 St / Columbus Circle to unify the subway lines there. 

 

I don't think a 5 Avenue line would have worked either. Having half of your walkshed lie in Central Park and the other half in Millionaire's Row isn't great for attracting ridership.

[Calvin]

Were the scheduled Gravesend-86 St trains before 2010 similar to this year or it's different?

[Mysterious2train]

Were the scheduled Gravesend-86 St trains before 2010 similar to this year or it's different?

 

I believe the three morning northbound trains were pretty much the same (Sea Beach renovation aside). 

 

Pre-2010, the three southbound trains were all in the evening, and went out of service at Kings Highway IIRC. Now, two of those three trips were moved to run in the morning instead, and all three are scheduled to go out of service at 86th Street. As a result, the last southbound train from Astoria is now two trips earlier than it was pre-2010 (9:58 PM vs. 10:17 PM)

Edited December 17, 2016 by Mysterious2train

[Around the Horn]

I believe the three morning northbound trains were pretty much the same (Sea Beach renovation aside). 

 

Pre-2010, the three southbound trains were all in the evening, and went out of service at Kings Highway IIRC. Now, two of those three trips were moved to run in the morning instead, and all three are scheduled to go out of service at 86th Street. As a result, the last southbound train from Astoria is now two trips earlier than it was pre-2010 (9:58 PM vs. 10:17 PM)

 

I'd have to check my old paper schedule to see if they mention it, but I think that the first two evening trips to Brooklyn went all the way to 86 St with only the last one ending at Kings Highway.

[Trainmaster5]

The design flaw of the BMT at DeKalb Avenue is a bigger deal today than it was when the Dual Contract 4th Avenue subway was built, IMO. The BMT "owned Brooklyn" at that time when it came to transit. The IRT was just getting it's feet wet in the borough. Recall the IRT Nevins St/BMT DeKalb Ave proposal ? That Dual Contracts compromise is what sealed the BMT's DeKalb Avenue and Myrtle Avenue subway stations fate. Many people forget that the BMT knew how to build.. When the BMT subway was being built all one had to do was look a few blocks to the N/W and see the Sands Street terminal and complex. The BMT had a monopoly on train and trolley service to Lower Manhattan back then. Myrtle, Lexington, Fifth, and Fulton Els all ran across the Brooklyn Bridge to Park Row as did BMT trolleys. Supposedly the BMT subway from DeKalb and Myrtle Avenue stations was laid out in the same way as the El station at Sands St with loop-back provisions built in north of the Myrtle Avenue station. With the Montague tunnel provisions and the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge services and the Williamsburg Bridge proposals out there the BMT seemed to have it made getting to Manhattan. As you rightfully pointed out the BMT's problems began once it actually entered Manhattan under lower Broadway. Of course the elimination of El service across the Brooklyn Bridge exposed the limitations of the DeKalb Avenue infrastructure but I don't think anyone anticipated all that twenty years earlier. I can see people saying the DeKalb complex was "overbuilt" if the El services were still running. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[Daniel The Cool]

I'd have to check my old paper schedule to see if they mention it, but I think that the first two evening trips to Brooklyn went all the way to 86 St with only the last one ending at Kings Highway.

Nope those trips ended at Kings Highway.

[Calvin]

With the every 20 minutes for the G/O, there are extra trains heading to Gravesend-86 St around 11AM, with 2 trains leaving the C.I Yard around 2PM.

[R10 2952]

A few random questions-

 

1. What is the current status of the R127/134s? Last I heard the TA was thinking of getting rid of them.

 

2. Do the individual subway lines still have "General Managers"? This particular layer of bureaucracy was instituted sometime around 2008/09, but apparently the TA plans to undo that setup or something. 

Edited December 18, 2016 by R10 2952

[P3F]

1. What is the current status of the R127/134s? Last I heard the TA was thinking of getting rid of them.

I can't say what the plans to do with them, but I have seen them on garbage train duty frequently in recent times.

[trainfan22]

I seen one of those R127/134 cars recently SMS'd, why would they get rid of them? There aren't even any plans to retire the R62/A's yet which are more beat up cause they run more, I wouldn't be surprised if the 127/134's are last SMEE trains we have having running in the system not counting museum trains. 

[paulrivera]

2. Do the individual subway lines still have "General Managers"? This particular layer of bureaucracy was instituted sometime around 2008/09, but apparently the TA plans to undo that setup or something. 

That General Manager program de-evolved quickly. Towards the end they had Group General Managers, Line General Managers, Assistant General Managers, Commissioners, Principal Owners, a Chairman, a COO, and a Board of Directors.

 

Eventually the subway lines had more authority figures than an episode of Monday Night RAW and then they just scrapped the whole thing.