SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[RR503]

Just now, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

As it stands now the Lex line can't handle the crowds. That's my point.... That was one reason why representatives of the UES opposed getting rid of the express bus that served the UES citing overcrowding on the Lex line. I think it should be looked at.  The MNRR via Amtrak would have a stop at 62nd on the West Side, and I'm sure it wouldn't just be for MNRR riders either. Subway riders would use it too.

I understand your point, I just question whether or not adding the stop would be effective in any way. 

West side is a different matter — 62nd street will attract riders who don’t want to trek over to broadway. Here, where MN and subway run a block apart, and where subway is equally fast as MN, the case for use isn’t nearly as strong.  

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I understand your point, I just question whether or not adding the stop would be effective in any way. 

West side is a different matter — 62nd street will attract riders who don’t want to trek over to broadway. Here, where MN and subway run a block apart, and where subway is equally fast as MN, the case for use isn’t nearly as strong.  

I disagree. If riders have the choice of being able to actually board a train and care about getting to their destination promptly, they'd pay more for it, as some already do at 125th, despite the subway being a block away.  If the line wasn't overcrowded I'd agree, but capacity is saturated.  I think it would be worth looking at.  Let's face it. You are not going to get much more capacity on the Lex line, and who knows when the rest of SAS will be built.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[Wallyhorse]

20 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I think you'd be surprised. I use MNRR to 125th over the subway and vice versa a lot. It's very quick... 10 minutes and one stop versus up to 30 minutes via the subway when it is really delayed and I think some would be willing to use it over the subway at 86th street, even with the higher fare. They could at least get on a train. They already do it at 125th...

That I agree with.  86th is the Central Business District for the Upper East Side. 

Yes, there would be a TON of work that would need to be done, including lengthening platforms, making then ADA compliant and so forth), however, I suspect long-term it would be worth doing because it would give those who live and work there an alternative to the Lex (especially for Yankee games and other events at Yankee Stadium) and making it much easier to travel to Westchester (being able to go from there instead of going to Grand Central or 125 first).  Plus, if you made it where people can travel from there to Grand Central or 125, I think it would be popular with those willing to pay extra, especially if you could institute a fare payment system similar to what SEPTA is now doing on the Regional Rail (where eventually you will have to swipe your card for travel at most stations before and/or after travel on the Regional Lines).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

34 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That I agree with.  86th is the Central Business District for the Upper East Side. 

Yes, there would be a TON of work that would need to be done, including lengthening platforms, making then ADA compliant and so forth), however, I suspect long-term it would be worth doing because it would give those who live and work there an alternative to the Lex (especially for Yankee games and other events at Yankee Stadium) and making it much easier to travel to Westchester (being able to go from there instead of going to Grand Central or 125 first).  Plus, if you made it where people can travel from there to Grand Central or 125, I think it would be popular with those willing to pay extra, especially if you could institute a fare payment system similar to what SEPTA is now doing on the Regional Rail (where eventually you will have to swipe your card for travel at most stations before and/or after travel on the Regional Lines).

People seem to think that no one is willing to pay more and only think about the people that currently use the  line.  That is simply not true. I know because I see how many people take Metro-North with me in the evenings and get off at 125th or Yankees East 153rd street for Yankee games.  Just from my area alone there would be people using it.  A lot of people go shopping on 86th street from Northern areas.

[Lance]

The cost-benefit analysis is not my biggest problem with such a proposal, even if it would be a massive undertaking even for a bare-bones station like Melrose or Tremont. My main issue with this is that it forces Metro-North to act more like a subway line instead of the commuter rail it is. The present run from Grand Central to 125 Street is about ten minutes, a bit longer if there is a logjam near the Grand Central yard. Restoring the stop at 86th Street will undoubtedly slow down the line for all three branches, more so for the Hudson line which would be the likely candidate for a stop if the present scheduling is an indicator. Is slowing down the mainline worth giving a few more passengers a one-seat ride via Metro-North? Better yet, is it a good trade-off for MN riders who don't have short commutes from within the city, most of whom don't work near the proposed 86th Street station?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

14 hours ago, Lance said:

The cost-benefit analysis is not my biggest problem with such a proposal, even if it would be a massive undertaking even for a bare-bones station like Melrose or Tremont. My main issue with this is that it forces Metro-North to act more like a subway line instead of the commuter rail it is. The present run from Grand Central to 125 Street is about ten minutes, a bit longer if there is a logjam near the Grand Central yard. Restoring the stop at 86th Street will undoubtedly slow down the line for all three branches, more so for the Hudson line which would be the likely candidate for a stop if the present scheduling is an indicator. Is slowing down the mainline worth giving a few more passengers a one-seat ride via Metro-North? Better yet, is it a good trade-off for MN riders who don't have short commutes from within the city, most of whom don't work near the proposed 86th Street station?

I don't think it's a few. They should do a study just to see how many people it would get. The thing is being that I'm on the Hudson Line, I see how many people get off at 125th heading North. One of the reasons more people don't use it is because of how Metro-North tries to hide the fact that it indeed stops at 125th and picks up there too.  Despite that I see more and more people taking it going to Grand Central and vice versa, and there's a reason. The can't handle the loads so what other solutions would you propose? I see no other solutions coming online any time soon.

The other thing is during the rush especially, more and more lines are essentially overcapacity. That doesn't mean people stop needing to get around, so eventually people stop using whatever set-up they've been going with. I'll be frank about it. I take Metro-North anytime I can avoid the subway because I have to wait so long to get on a train now because they are all packed. If the could run their subways properly then I would agree, but they are struggling to meet service on numerous lines now. I had the same thing on the last night, and it was supposedly "Good Service". 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Via Garibaldi 8

[trainfan22]

I know putting A/C in underground stations is regularly talked about, but heating in underground stations during the winter would be nice as well. A lot of these underground stations is brick during the cold weather months, 42 street S/B on the 8th Ave line feels like the north pole.

Edited January 5, 2018 by trainfan22

[bobtehpanda]

On 1/2/2018 at 1:28 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Speaking of Metro-North I've always thought that there should be a stop at 86th street. That could be another way to take some of the strain off of the  line. I've surprised it hasn't been brought up before.

The major issue is that Metro North cars, as large as they are with only two doors, would spend quite a lot of time letting people off at 86 St, cutting the total capacity into Grand Central.

IMO the major missed opportunity is 149th St-GC, given that West Side trains also stop there. And while you're at it, grade separate that junction so that crossing trains don't hold each other up.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The major issue is that Metro North cars, as large as they are with only two doors, would spend quite a lot of time letting people off at 86 St, cutting the total capacity into Grand Central.

IMO the major missed opportunity is 149th St-GC, given that West Side trains also stop there. And while you're at it, grade separate that junction so that crossing trains don't hold each other up.

That's an absurd reason not to run service.  I wouldn't lower the fare either.  It's the Upper East Side, which is where most of the ridership would come from. They would be willing to pay the higher fares. They already have various car services.  Sometimes I stay in the city.  One morning I was going back to my apartment to change and come down to go to my office. I walked over to 86th and 3rd for the BxM1.  A younger lady asked me if I was waiting for this particular car service, whose name escapes me.  It was evident that it was a service specifically for UES residents. I told her no, but thanks, but it got to me thinking, since the service was not marked anywhere.  I'm sure that service is not cheap either and something that the community set up. 

You have to remember that they had the X90 before and there was a lot of uproar about that service being discontinued.  One of the main arguments was that the Lex line is over capacity even at that time, and that is definitely true. You can't keep making excuses as to why there shouldn't be alternatives.  We need to find solutions to this problem in the next few years because quite frankly, I don't foresee the SAS being extended further for some time, not unless some miracle happens in terms of securing funding.  

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That's an absurd reason not to run service.  I wouldn't lower the fare either.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth. The entire point is operational; adding a stop at 86th St will just decrease the service you can run into Grand Central, because passengers going from the middle of the cars to the ends where the doors are will just hold up the train until it can leave. 86 St is not Nowhere, Dutchess County where 1 or 2 people are getting off, if that. These cars are not designed for subway style service with lots of on/off activity at intermediate stops. And you'd be putting it at the single biggest chokepoint into GCT.

Given the technology and the trains that we currently have, the MTA can either run more trains into Grand Central, or make stops at 86 St. It's not surprising that they chose the former.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

13 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Thanks for putting words into my mouth. The entire point is operational; adding a stop at 86th St will just decrease the service you can run into Grand Central, because passengers going from the middle of the cars to the ends where the doors are will just hold up the train until it can leave. 86 St is not Nowhere, Dutchess County where 1 or 2 people are getting off, if that. These cars are not designed for subway style service with lots of on/off activity at intermediate stops. And you'd be putting it at the single biggest chokepoint into GCT.

Given the technology and the trains that we currently have, the MTA can either run more trains into Grand Central, or make stops at 86 St. It's not surprising that they chose the former.

I didn't put words in your mouth at all. I just voiced my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.  First off, we don't know how many passengers the station would even get.  However, given that there was a station at 86th, I think it's evident that some thought the Lex line wasn't enough even then.  We also had the Third Avenue El that was torn down. No wonder the Lex line can't handle the loads.  I think something must be restored to help.  I'm not saying it has to run like a subway nor should it handle such loads.  The higher fares would deter the trains becoming crush loaded.  What do you suggest aside from funding SAS, which I don't see happening any time soon?

[Lance]

Actually, the station at 86th Street closed well before the Lexington Ave line was built. In fact, it predates the original IRT subway by about a year. Also, the station closed in part due to a shift of ridership from the NY Central Railroad to the elevated lines, possibly because the service run by Central was duplicated by the Third Ave elevated and probably cost less for riders. That's actually what probably killed all of the intermediate stations between Grand Central and 125th Street.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm noticing a theme here in regards to this, which is you have a tendency to speak for everyone involved in such changes when in reality you simply cannot. First off, let's look at your belief that people would be willing to pay more for Metro-North service in the Upper East Side. Since I highly doubt this proposed 86th Street would be under its own fare tier, that means prices for all trips into Manhattan would have to go up. With the prices of monthly tickets at or above $250 for most riders, that would be a hard sell for many riders, most of which will see no benefit of the UES station because their destinations would still be Grand Central. Also, as has been mentioned in previous comments, Metro-North does not serve just the city of New York. Even if service to the proposed 86th Street station ran on 30-60 minute intervals, it will still slow down the line at the busiest point, especially in the rush hour. For people with trips of an hour or more, this would be a complete disservice simply to make a few riders' trips a little more convenient. After all, the whole point of mass transit is to serve the masses. I'm sorry to say, a few people travelling from Riverdale to the Upper East Side do not count as masses.

To answer your question, in order to solve this problem, we have to address the elephant in the room, which is the deteriorating infrastructure. Instead of shifting the problem from the subway to Metro-North, the MTA needs to upgrade the signals and structures so that more trains can run on the and  lines and add more trains to allow more riders to actually use the trains.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

6 minutes ago, Lance said:

Actually, the station at 86th Street closed well before the Lexington Ave line was built. In fact, it predates the original IRT subway by about a year. Also, the station closed in part due to a shift of ridership from the NY Central Railroad to the elevated lines, possibly because the service run by Central was duplicated by the Third Ave elevated and probably cost less for riders. That's actually what probably killed all of the intermediate stations between Grand Central and 125th Street.

As for the rest of your comments, I'm noticing a theme here in regards to this, which is you have a tendency to speak for everyone involved in such changes when in reality you simply cannot. First off, let's look at your belief that people would be willing to pay more for Metro-North service in the Upper East Side. Since I highly doubt this proposed 86th Street would be under its own fare tier, that means prices for all trips into Manhattan would have to go up. With the prices of monthly tickets at or above $250 for most riders, that would be a hard sell for many riders, most of which will see no benefit of the UES station because their destinations would still be Grand Central. Also, as has been mentioned in previous comments, Metro-North does not serve just the city of New York. Even if service to the proposed 86th Street station ran on 30-60 minute intervals, it will still slow down the line at the busiest point, especially in the rush hour. For people with trips of an hour or more, this would be a complete disservice simply to make a few riders' trips a little more convenient. After all, the whole point of mass transit is to serve the masses. I'm sorry to say, a few people travelling from Riverdale to the Upper East Side do not count as masses.

To answer your question, in order to solve this problem, we have to address the elephant in the room, which is the deteriorating infrastructure. Instead of shifting the problem from the subway to Metro-North, the MTA needs to upgrade the signals and structures so that more trains can run on the and  lines and add more trains to allow more riders to actually use the trains.

So many lies in this I don't even where to begin.  You're assuming that such trips would solely involve the Hudson Line.  A stop at 86th street wouldn't just serve Riverdale residents, but nice try.  You seem to want to read what suits your agenda.  You don't support the idea because it would inconvenience your commute from Westchester.  Let's be honest here... What I said originally was that a study should be done to see how much ridership would be garnered (and from where).  That seems like a very logical thing to do.  Even IF more capacity were added to the  , you still don't address access issues, and given how slow the  has been to implement newer technologies to allow for more trains, you and I may be senior citizens before that happens.   There are several neighborhoods that have no East Side access via rail that could benefit from this.  Quite frankly, I don't see this being any different than the pilot program being run for Southeast Queens with the LIRR.  This is about continuing to provide more equality for accessible transportation for NYC neighborhoods that lack subway service or don't have enough of it.  As it stands, suburban riders from Westchester and Long Island are heavily subsidized via the City anyway, so if we really want to get into who is paying their fair share, I'd be glad to discuss that... 

 I would be curious to see just how many riders come from points south to say 125th street to reach Metro-North that would benefit from this. Part of the reason that the  is such a mess is because we're stuck with the same travel patterns and assuming that people only go here and there. 

[Union Tpke]

IMG_4239 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

[LGA Link N Train]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

IMG_4239 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

I'll keep that in mind next time I ride the and  also nice picture.

By the way did they update the announcements?

Edited January 5, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[LGA Link N Train]

I just remembered a random dream where I was trying to go home on QBL (from Elmhurst Av for some odd reason?) and all of a sudden there was a Run away Redbird train (R30 to be exact) wi the it's rollsigns set on the and (not sure why I had this dream) and there were a bunch of foamer's inside the train yelling a bunch of stuff.

Then I somehow caught up with it at 63 Drive (my stop). Then I woke up wondering. .....

What the **** did I just dream?

Edited January 5, 2018 by LGA Link N train

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

@LGA Link N train I also had a dream!

I remember this dream where I was riding an R16, Redbirds, and R1-9s. I remember being at Coney Island, but then all of a sudden I was in a Chambers St-looking station. This was a new home for the NYTM and it had every single vintage car from their collection inside. I went inside the cars, but they all had messed up rollsigns because the cranks still worked. I then vaguely remember riding the Train of Many Colors thru the South Ferry Loop, and I was crossing between the cars. After that, I woke up. 

What the fffffffffffff (breakso into laughter) A Chambers St looking station as the New NYTM, NO ONE is gonna visit that (except foamers and Railfans of course  😂😂😂😂) and If I were you, then I would've played around with those Rollsigns lol

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I didn't put words in your mouth at all. I just voiced my opinion, and I'm sticking with it.  First off, we don't know how many passengers the station would even get.  However, given that there was a station at 86th, I think it's evident that some thought the Lex line wasn't enough even then.  We also had the Third Avenue El that was torn down. No wonder the Lex line can't handle the loads.  I think something must be restored to help.  I'm not saying it has to run like a subway nor should it handle such loads.  The higher fares would deter the trains becoming crush loaded.  What do you suggest aside from funding SAS, which I don't see happening any time soon?

There are two cases in this scenario:

1. The station would be lightly used. In which case, expanding the station for the current car lengths on Metro North and building out proper infrastructure for a station not touched in more than a century is not worth the money.

2. The station gets a decent amount of usage. In which case, people leaving the trains now hold up the entire train, reducing capacity into Grand Central. Keep in mind that it doesn't take all that much to do that, since all you need is one grandma making her way from the middle seats to hold up the entire system.

None of these screams 'viable' to me at all. This is actually worse than doing nothing.

[GreatOne2k]

Should other stations on Metro North be re-opened, like 183rd Street? In that case there is no nearby subway station at all since the Third Avenue Elevated (8) train was demolished. 

[P3F]

29 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Should other stations on Metro North be re-opened, like 183rd Street? In that case there is no nearby subway station at all since the Third Avenue Elevated (8) train was demolished. 

I looked at it out of curiosity, and funnily enough, it appears they actually forgot to demolish part of the platform.

Check it out here: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8550228,-73.8949535,3a,60y,305.3h,76.82t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg1OOBdAS-A1k02aRESvhWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

There are two cases in this scenario:

1. The station would be lightly used. In which case, expanding the station for the current car lengths on Metro North and building out proper infrastructure for a station not touched in more than a century is not worth the money.

2. The station gets a decent amount of usage. In which case, people leaving the trains now hold up the entire train, reducing capacity into Grand Central. Keep in mind that it doesn't take all that much to do that, since all you need is one grandma making her way from the middle seats to hold up the entire system.

None of these screams 'viable' to me at all. This is actually worse than doing nothing.

Capacity in the tunnels isn't an issue. Remember that GCT was once the nexus of not only a commuter network larger than today's, but also a truly expansive set of long distance trains -- all of which entered and left the terminal via those tunnels. The ~30 tph run by MNR through the tunnels today is child's play -- you can easily have trains stop without causing any issues. Note that such an operational scheme is done by the LIRR (also on a busy, 4 track main) through Queens at Woodside, Forest Hills, and Kew Gardens with no issues. 

That said, for this to be truly effective, the junction at 149 will have to be rebuilt. IIRC Hudson line trains can only use the westernmost 3 tracks because of the junctions config. For the same reason, the vast majority of trains that would pass the northbound platform at the abandoned 86th street station would be n/b Hudson Line trains. Unless you're OK with infrequent service (and an inbalence in train origin/destination) with more train merging, you'd either have to reconfigure the abandoned platforms to serve all tracks, or reconfigure the interlocking at 149 to better distribute trains. I'd say grade separate it, but that'd be next to impossible without messing up all the overpasses in the area (sinking the lines would be even more difficult -- water table issues + crossing over IRT WPR at 149). I would also suggest reconfiguring the entire thing so that Hudson gets the western 2 tracks, and Harlem/NH gets the eastern 2, but that's giving the most track cap to the least busy line...

In short this is a bit of a Gordian knot. 

In terms of waiting for people to get off, that isn't an issue. Commuters who currently travel to, say, forest hills, know to be in the first or last few cars so they are ready at the platform. Conductors also tell people where they should be on the train so they don't miss the platform. Put differently, I've never heard of an MNR (or LIRR) train having to wait/holding for people to walk up to the correct cars. 

39 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Should other stations on Metro North be re-opened, like 183rd Street? In that case there is no nearby subway station at all since the Third Avenue Elevated (8) train was demolished. 

Yes. Absolutely. Especially if that Freedom Ticket thing goes through. Even the Bronx service increases MNR has been testing lately have been wildly successful. 

3 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

@LGA Link N train I also had a dream!

I remember this dream where I was riding an R16, Redbirds, and R1-9s. I remember being at Coney Island, but then all of a sudden I was in a Chambers St-looking station. This was a new home for the NYTM and it had every single vintage car from their collection inside. I went inside the cars, but they all had messed up rollsigns because the cranks still worked. I then vaguely remember riding the Train of Many Colors thru the South Ferry Loop, and I was crossing between the cars. After that, I woke up. 

Get a shrink. Both of you. 

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

In terms of waiting for people to get off, that isn't an issue. Commuters who currently travel to, say, forest hills, know to be in the first or last few cars so they are ready at the platform. Conductors also tell people where they should be on the train so they don't miss the platform. Put differently, I've never heard of an MNR (or LIRR) train having to wait/holding for people to walk up to the correct cars. 

I would expect an 86 St station to be an order of magnitude busier than Forest Hills, Kew Gardens, Murray Hill, or any of the other short platform stops.

Also, slight correction; Woodside is actually six tracks.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

There are two cases in this scenario:

1. The station would be lightly used. In which case, expanding the station for the current car lengths on Metro North and building out proper infrastructure for a station not touched in more than a century is not worth the money.

2. The station gets a decent amount of usage. In which case, people leaving the trains now hold up the entire train, reducing capacity into Grand Central. Keep in mind that it doesn't take all that much to do that, since all you need is one grandma making her way from the middle seats to hold up the entire system.

None of these screams 'viable' to me at all. This is actually worse than doing nothing.

No. What's worse is having even more severe overcrowding at Grand Central and other stations where they now close off staircases because the trains are overcrowded and the platforms are dangerously packed with nowhere to go. 

[Around the Horn]

In an interesting development, theres a Siemens set on the  today.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

33 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

In an interesting development, theres a Siemens set on the  today.

That's sounds rare, isn't the  all R46's? What line did it come from?