Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, VIP said:

8 cars

Well they mind as well just send it to 96st with 8 cars...They should consider sending  the (M) to 96st on weekends if its not gonna be on Queens blvd regardless of whats going on with the (L)...It get's good ridership from my experience 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

Well they mind as well just send it to 96st with 8 cars...They should consider sending  the (M) to 96st on weekends if its not gonna be on Queens blvd regardless of whats going on with the (L)...It get's good ridership from my experience 

I agree with that. I’d rather have the (M) run to 96th street which provides a one seat ride through Midtown. Nobody should have to get off at Essex and wait for the (F) unless they are boosting service on that line. The additonal service on Broadway and Astoria can honestly be provided by providing more (N) service. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The additonal service on Broadway and Astoria can honestly be provided by providing more (N) service. 

What do you think the (W) is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 1:54 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

How much work would be needed to turn City Hall lower into a functional terminal? I know the platforms are only 480 ft, but the crossover is set back (you would only use the island platform as 3 tracks is overkill). 

Also, how many trains could you turn there? (You would probably only turn 6-8 though if you had 30 TPH on Broadway local.)

A lot. The lower level is completely bare-bones with only a minimalistic set of platforms and one access point via the in-service upper level platform. Unlike Bergen St, in which the lower level actually did see active service for some time before being abandoned, City Hall was never actually placed into service as the plans changed during construction. Only the tracks are well maintained to facilitate post-rush hour layups. In order to get the station completely passenger-ready, those platforms would have to be completely rebuilt and new exits would have to be installed for better passenger flow. All of this would have to be ADA-compliant as this would fall under a major renovation.

It would be much more likely that the lower level would just be used to relay trains terminating at Canal St, but that would just replicate the problems of Forest Hills, where through-running service gets trapped behind terminating trains, so that's ill-advised in my opinion.

On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 11:22 PM, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

The old R46 paint reminds me of the LIRR M1/M3. Looks fly. 

That was intentional. The MTA corporate scheme of the late '60s onwards was implemented on the buses and trains to illustrate the unification of the various transit systems under the MTA umbrella.

11 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I agree with that. I’d rather have the (M) run to 96th street which provides a one seat ride through Midtown. Nobody should have to get off at Essex and wait for the (F) unless they are boosting service on that line. The additonal service on Broadway and Astoria can honestly be provided by providing more (N) service. 

The purpose of the extended M is to provide alternate service during the partial Canarsie closure, not to provide additional 6th Avenue service. If the L is running its normal route, under these circumstances, there's no reason for the M to run to midtown.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance said:

It would be much more likely that the lower level would just be used to relay trains terminating at Canal St, but that would just replicate the problems of Forest Hills, where through-running service gets trapped behind terminating trains, so that's ill-advised in my opinion.

Just want to harp on this again: there is nothing inherent in relay terminals which says that they have to be major delay generators. Forest Hills and Church Avenue are bad because we made them bad through our refusal to get operations in a line, not because they have to be that way. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the (M) doesnt mirror the (L)...It only share one stop together which is myrtle-wykoff...ive rode the (M) and most ppl dont get off to transfer to the (L)...6av needs more than just the (D) (F) nowadays..especially if something happens between CI and Midtown...Every other midtown service has 3 lines on wkends...Why 6av this big exception 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Just want to harp on this again: there is nothing inherent in relay terminals which says that they have to be major delay generators. Forest Hills and Church Avenue are bad because we made them bad through our refusal to get operations in a line, not because they have to be that way. 

That may be, but do you realistically see that changing in the immediate future? Transit is extremely hesitant to change their operations and they have leadership quite content with the status quo. If trains have to be fumigated on a through track in order to relay, under present procedures, they will inevitably cause delays upstream. A way of mitigating this for this scenario would be to treat the short-turning trains like standard 6 trains where every train returns back to service, but that would have to be the case for all short-turning Broadway locals as City Hall has no tail tracks for storage.

23 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

But the (M) doesnt mirror the (L)...It only share one stop together which is myrtle-wykoff...ive rode the (M) and most ppl dont get off to transfer to the (L)...6av needs more than just the (D) (F) nowadays..especially if something happens between CI and Midtown...Every other midtown service has 3 lines on wkends...Why 6av this big exception 

We are of the same mindset here. However, the MTA is not interested in running additional service simply for the sake of it. That is unless our main man Andy C. orders them to, then all bets are off. The weekend M extension is only in place so people don't bum-rush the limited L trains running cross-river during the slowdown. With the L running normally along its full route and intervals this weekend, the justification for expanded M service is removed in the eyes of the MTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance said:

The purpose of the extended M is to provide alternate service during the partial Canarsie closure, not to provide additional 6th Avenue service. If the L is running its normal route, under these circumstances, there's no reason for the M to run to midtown.

I understand that but from what I‘ve noticed, most people are taking the (L) to Lorimer Street and then they wait for the 8th Ave bound train. The few times I took the (M) into Manhattan on the weekend there was quite a decent amount of people who stay on past Essex and on 6th Ave. Plus 6th Ave is the only trunk line that has two services on the weekend. I’m hoping that after the shutdown is over the (M) can permanently be extended up 6th Ave which will be beneficial to both 6th Ave and Brooklyn passengers.  The (D) and (F) are not the most reliable from my experience.

Edited by NewFlyer 230

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Just want to harp on this again: there is nothing inherent in relay terminals which says that they have to be major delay generators. Forest Hills and Church Avenue are bad because we made them bad through our refusal to get operations in a line, not because they have to be that way. 

If your (E)(K) from 71st Avenue via 8th Avenue Express and Fulton are implemented, you need to be able to handle at least 26 TPH at Forest Hills. How would you go about doing that? In addition, Cranberry could use additional service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lance said:

A lot. The lower level is completely bare-bones with only a minimalistic set of platforms and one access point via the in-service upper level platform. Unlike Bergen St, in which the lower level actually did see active service for some time before being abandoned, City Hall was never actually placed into service as the plans changed during construction. Only the tracks are well maintained to facilitate post-rush hour layups. In order to get the station completely passenger-ready, those platforms would have to be completely rebuilt and new exits would have to be installed for better passenger flow. All of this would have to be ADA-compliant as this would fall under a major renovation.

It would be much more likely that the lower level would just be used to relay trains terminating at Canal St, but that would just replicate the problems of Forest Hills, where through-running service gets trapped behind terminating trains, so that's ill-advised in my opinion.

This may be a controversial opinion but I think that's a good thing and we should absolutely go through with it.

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

If your (E)(K) from 71st Avenue via 8th Avenue Express and Fulton are implemented, you need to be able to handle at least 26 TPH at Forest Hills.

This is bordering on a discussion fit for the proposals thread but I think that's a terrible idea. I'd rather keep the (E)(F)(M) the same and simply slot in the (K) for the (R). I personally don't think interlining is conducive for Queens Blvd because it would create in-balances in ridership.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lance said:

That may be, but do you realistically see that changing in the immediate future? Transit is extremely hesitant to change their operations and they have leadership quite content with the status quo. If trains have to be fumigated on a through track in order to relay, under present procedures, they will inevitably cause delays upstream. A way of mitigating this for this scenario would be to treat the short-turning trains like standard 6 trains where every train returns back to service, but that would have to be the case for all short-turning Broadway locals as City Hall has no tail tracks for storage.

 

Your last sentence summed up the whole problem in a nutshell. The sentence preceding it should provide an answer to those theorists who claim to know what it takes to speed up terminal operations. One person can't fumigate a train quickly.  Two T/Os can move the train but if there's a sick person or an unruly passenger(s) onboard  all bets are off. NYPD officers aren't assigned to help fumigate and relay trains. No one is going to risk his/her life to speed up a relay. I've personally had problems doing single end relays at Utica Avenue.  Weapons displayed,  female, and male ,  anatomy exposed,  panhandlers,  what have you.  When I had an officer respond to the young dude with the weapon we found the weapon was fake,  a replica, but I didn't know that at the time.  Back then relay people didn't have personal radios to call for help so in that case if the young man had personally threatened me something bad would have happened to one of us. BTW if I or any of my fellow retirees felt like it we could screw up Bowling Green or Utica just for laughs and nothing would be done to us old, slow moving folks. 😁

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Queens Blvd would never get rid of the (R) because it's connections to (4)(5)(6) and along the Broadway Line.

My god you are way too obsessed with keeping the (R) on QBL... you have the (6) at 51st for the (K) replacing it and the point about Broadway access is moot considering that most people on QBL take the (R) for Lex express to downtown, and under that case you would just take the (F)(M) to 63rd for the (N)(Q) to Union Sq... 

As for the whole fumigation issue, I would station both platform staff and NYPD at major terminals like Forest Hills and Bowling Green to turn trains around ASAP. 

BTW, why do trains fumigate at Broad if they usually turn around and head back into service immediately? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your last sentence summed up the whole problem in a nutshell. The sentence preceding it should provide an answer to those theorists who claim to know what it takes to speed up terminal operations. One person can't fumigate a train quickly.  Two T/Os can move the train but if there's a sick person or an unruly passenger(s) onboard  all bets are off. 

One person can't fumigate a train but what about a dedicated crew of platform conductors assigned to that one station and each person deals with one or two cars simultaneously? Is that something that would be feasible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

One person can't fumigate a train but what about a dedicated crew of platform conductors assigned to that one station and each person deals with one or two cars simultaneously? Is that something that would be feasible?

Something like that now happens at Forest Hills.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

My god you are way too obsessed with keeping the (R) on QBL... you have the (6) at 51st for the (K) replacing it and the point about Broadway access is moot considering that most people on QBL take the (R) for Lex express to downtown, and under that case you would just take the (F)(M) to 63rd for the (N)(Q) to Union Sq... 

As for the whole fumigation issue, I would station both platform staff and NYPD at major terminals like Forest Hills and Bowling Green to turn trains around ASAP. 

BTW, why do trains fumigate at Broad if they usually turn around and head back into service immediately? 

And what is a blue (K) train? When we already have a blue (E) train. So both (E) and (K) would run on the 8 Av line with (A)(C) causing more congestion. Plus more congestion with (M) via 53 St and tunnel in between Manhattan and Queens.  Riders need a free direct in station transfer to at 59 St (4)(5) Express (6) not just the (6) at 51 St.  Queens Blvd riders need a yellow line route like the (R) also goes directly towards the West side 57 St, 49 St, 42 St Times Sq, 34 St Herald Sq.  And then goes towards East side for riders who prefers and one seat ride. And also Brooklyn service.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

One person can't fumigate a train but what about a dedicated crew of platform conductors assigned to that one station and each person deals with one or two cars simultaneously? Is that something that would be feasible?

I can't speak on the B division, but there are conductors assigned to work the platforms and help out at Parkchester and Utica. Those terminals still get backed up too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

And what is a blue (K) train? When we already have a blue (E) train. So both (E) and (K) would run on the 8 Av line with (A)(C) causing more congestion. Plus more congestion with (M) via 53 St and tunnel in between Manhattan and Queens.  

What part of this are you not getting? The (C) would become 8th Av Express, removing the problematic merge at Canal Street. The (M) would move to 63rd Street with the (F). The (K) would take the place of the (R) on QBL, (M) on 53rd and (C) on 8th Av.

The B division is nowhere near capacity when we remove silly merges that go on today. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your last sentence summed up the whole problem in a nutshell. The sentence preceding it should provide an answer to those theorists who claim to know what it takes to speed up terminal operations. One person can't fumigate a train quickly.  Two T/Os can move the train but if there's a sick person or an unruly passenger(s) onboard  all bets are off. NYPD officers aren't assigned to help fumigate and relay trains. No one is going to risk his/her life to speed up a relay. I've personally had problems doing single end relays at Utica Avenue.  Weapons displayed,  female, and male ,  anatomy exposed,  panhandlers,  what have you.  When I had an officer respond to the young dude with the weapon we found the weapon was fake,  a replica, but I didn't know that at the time.  Back then relay people didn't have personal radios to call for help so in that case if the young man had personally threatened me something bad would have happened to one of us. BTW if I or any of my fellow retirees felt like it we could screw up Bowling Green or Utica just for laughs and nothing would be done to us old, slow moving folks. 😁

100% truth. One time after i got to New Lots my partner asked me to key open all of the doors because she had to use the restroom, alright fine. A (2) train pulls in and a woman stops me to tell me someone is sleeping on the train (and as you know those trains layup at Livonia yard) alright fine again I board the train and me and the road C/R try to wake him up then a switchman comes in yelling  for us to be careful because the guy has a knife. Sure enough it was right by his foot. Made sure to keep my distance until he got off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your last sentence summed up the whole problem in a nutshell. The sentence preceding it should provide an answer to those theorists who claim to know what it takes to speed up terminal operations. One person can't fumigate a train quickly.  Two T/Os can move the train but if there's a sick person or an unruly passenger(s) onboard  all bets are off. NYPD officers aren't assigned to help fumigate and relay trains. No one is going to risk his/her life to speed up a relay. I've personally had problems doing single end relays at Utica Avenue.  Weapons displayed,  female, and male ,  anatomy exposed,  panhandlers,  what have you.  When I had an officer respond to the young dude with the weapon we found the weapon was fake,  a replica, but I didn't know that at the time.  Back then relay people didn't have personal radios to call for help so in that case if the young man had personally threatened me something bad would have happened to one of us. BTW if I or any of my fellow retirees felt like it we could screw up Bowling Green or Utica just for laughs and nothing would be done to us old, slow moving folks. 😁

This isn’t theory. This is what nearly every other transit system in the world does at their terminals, and indeed what we once did. I completely understand that there are good reasons for which we operate terminals as we do today, but to accept said reasons without any examination of potential changes is bad form/policy, and is emblematic of the mentality that got us into this operational mess in the first place. 

I want to be absolutely clear about what I’m proposing, too. I’m proposing that crews and terminal dispatchers simply follow the bulletinS that have been issued about operations at relay terminals. Said bulletins state that relays should be double ended and not fumigated (eliminating the real risks you and other point out) if they are returning into service promptly. This should hopefully answer all questions as to a) whether NYCT is capable of operational change (yes, they already made the damn change) and whether crews/platform crews need to interact with customers outside of some otherwise attention-needing sick/unruly passenger scenario (no, no need to clear trains out). 

I, too, think that for the sake of expediency in clearing out layups and dealing with times when no switch crew/outbound crew is available, NYPD and maybe a platform CR should be on hand, but once again, those situations are largely outside the purview of this discussion as most relay terminals are not dealing with all that many (if any) moves of those types when turning peak service. 

Once these changes are complied with, I would imagine that (signals/geometry  permitting) full capacity is possible at all relays. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

What part of this are you not getting? The (C) would become 8th Av Express, removing the problematic merge at Canal Street. The (M) would move to 63rd Street with the (F). The (K) would take the place of the (R) on QBL, (M) on 53rd and (C) on 8th Av.

The B division is nowhere near capacity when we remove silly merges that go on today. 

(C) could not be Express with (A) and that means both (B)(D) would both run Local in between 59 St and 145 St. (D) needs to provide Rush hour Peak Exp for Bronx Concourse riders. They would never remove (R) from Queens Blvd Line because MTA already knows what would happen if (R) is removed it would cause major headache.  All riders would be forced to transfer at Roosevelt Av/74 St for the (7) to Queensborough Plaza for (N)(W) and at 42 St-Times Sq. And for direct transfer to (4)(5)(6) and not just (6) at 51 St/53 St. Plus they would not have a (K) train.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

If your (E)(K) from 71st Avenue via 8th Avenue Express and Fulton are implemented, you need to be able to handle at least 26 TPH at Forest Hills. How would you go about doing that? In addition, Cranberry could use additional service.

I don’t see why not. Assuming you get the fumigation scene in line and CBTC takes those godawful DGTs away, the only other limit I can think of is the speed of the move through the crossovers on the lower level relay tracks. I *believe* (and one of the RTO people please correct me if I’m wrong) that at least one of the common moves for relaying trains down there involves taking a 3 yellow signal, meaning 10mph... If yes, it’s possible CBTC will change that, but I obviously do not know whether it will. If it doesn’t, then it’s at most a matter of changing the speed profile for the area. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bwwnyc123 said:

(C) could not be Express with (A) and that means both (B)(D) would both run Local in between 59 St and 145 St. (D) needs to provide Rush hour Peak Exp for Bronx Concourse riders. They would never remove (R) from Queens Blvd Line because MTA already knows what would happen if (R) is removed it would cause major headache.  All riders would be forced to transfer at Roosevelt Av/74 St for the (7) to Queensborough Plaza for (N)(W) and at 42 St-Times Sq. And for direct transfer to (4)(5)(6) and not just (6) at 51 St/53 St. Plus they would not have a (K) train.

The (C) would run express south of 50th so it's not going to crowd out the (A) . As for the rest of your response, its been addressed numerous times and you clearly won't listen so you can look thorough past posts. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I *believe* (and one of the RTO people please correct me if I’m wrong) that at least one of the common moves for relaying trains down there involves taking a 3 yellow signal, meaning 10mph... If yes, it’s possible CBTC will change that, but I obviously do not know whether it will. If it doesn’t, then it’s at most a matter of changing the speed profile for the area. 

According to my copy of the Tracks of the NYC Subway book, its three yellows to D7 or D8 (the two relay tracks in the middle) if they are partially occupied. Other wise it's just a yellow onto D7 or D8 and its a green to continue on D6 to Jamaica Yard.

I'll defer to anyone from RTO if I'm misinformed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

One person can't fumigate a train but what about a dedicated crew of platform conductors assigned to that one station and each person deals with one or two cars simultaneously? Is that something that would be feasible?

The simple answer is no. Since I can't touch you, which is assault,  a person who doesn't want to be moved can't be moved except by law enforcement people. NYPD,  in my experience, are hesitant about using physical methods to remove people unless it's absolutely necessary.  The homeless add a health component to the problem. I will admit to using extreme measures back in the day ,  I was taught by Transit Police,  but I wouldn't risk my health and livelihood today. AIDS was the deterrent back then. Today we have the gangbangers and the mentally ill to consider. Completely different ballgame. All you need is one person to upset the whole appiecart. 

  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.