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

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Sure they’d pay the first couple of days with the enforcer there to check but once the enforcer leaves, the fares will no longer be paid.

Why would the fare inspectors leave? The (MTA) should know that once fare inspectors leave, people won't pay the fare. POP systems never work w/o fare inspectors 24/7.

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

They have also considered adding turnstiles at Grasmere due to the bus connection. Keep in mind that like 97% of riders use it to St. George. I wonder what they will do with OMNY.

I wonder how that would work, since if it requires someone to pay double fare to go to Grasmere to St. George, people wouldn't be so happy. Also I highly doubt the number of riders using it to St. George is 97%. There's no way to tell ridership levels between Stapleton and Tottenville since there's no way of counting ridership. A POP system would help in showing ridership levels for those stops and the (MTA) can adjust service levels accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

Why would the fare inspectors leave? The (MTA) should know that once fare inspectors leave, people won't pay the fare. POP systems never work w/o fare inspectors 24/7.

I wonder how that would work, since if it requires someone to pay double fare to go to Grasmere to St. George, people wouldn't be so happy. Also I highly doubt the number of riders using it to St. George is 97%. There's no way to tell ridership levels between Stapleton and Tottenville since there's no way of counting ridership. A POP system would help in showing ridership levels for those stops and the (MTA) can adjust service levels accordingly.

There is no double fare between Tompkinsville and St. George.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

I once caught an R46 (E) years ago (as in, around 2008). It was an (F) at Union Tpke that got turned into an (E) going to Manhattan for whatever reason. The crew changed the bullets and side signs and everything. If I go far back enough in my post history on here, I can find the post (it was probably one of the first things I ever posted). 

They ran serveral R46 on the (E) when the r32s needed work.....some of yall  kills me with the dwell time crap..Wth all theses other DELAYS...Dwell times not even a big issue anymore...In my opinion they should put a couple of  r46 on the (E) and put a couple more 160 on the (R)...Its not gonna kill the entire (E) line if they done that...The latest signal problems have been...Just my opinion

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

They ran serveral R46 on the (E) when the r32s needed work.....some of yall  kills me with the dwell time crap..Wth all theses other DELAYS...Dwell times not even a big issue anymore...In my opinion they should put a couple of  r46 on the (E) and put a couple more 160 on the (R)...Its not gonna kill the entire (E) line if they done that...The latest signal problems have been...Just my opinion

Dwell times are a big issue, and they compound the impacts of other delays. If there hasn't been an (E) at Roosevelt for 10 minutes, when they should be running every 4 minutes because of a sick passenger, more people will try to pack onto the next (E), delaying the train further. If it were a train of R46s, there would be 8 fewer doors to work with, meaning that it would take longer for the train to leave the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Dwell times are a big issue, and they compound the impacts of other delays. If there hasn't been an (E) at Roosevelt for 10 minutes, when they should be running every 4 minutes because of a sick passenger, more people will try to pack onto the next (E), delaying the train further. If it were a train of R46s, there would be 8 fewer doors to work with, meaning that it would take longer for the train to leave the station.

I get all that...But they run on the (A) just fine and the (A) is just as busy of a line than the (E)....So the same should apply to the (A) in those terms...All im saying they ran on the (E) before with no problem...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

I get all that...But they run on the (A) just fine and the (A) is just as busy of a line than the (E)....

The (A) sure as hell is not busier than the (E)...

As for your R160 (R) statement, those cars run on the line practically everyday (seen them myself) but no so much for a reason. Otherwise, the (F) would be half R46s, mostly R46s, or virtually all R46s by now. With probably just a bit on the (E) as well.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

The (A) sure as hell is not busier than the (E)...

As for your R160 (R) statement, those cars run on the line practically everyday (seen them myself) but no so much for a reason. Otherwise, the (F) would be half R46s, mostly R46s, or virtually all R46s by now.

Aren't some of the NTT (R) cars R179s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

Aren't some of the NTT (R) cars R179s?

The R179s run on the (A), (C), and (J). Some are in four-car sets to make up a full 480 feet long train. Some others are in five-car sets to make up a full 600 feet long train. Same with the R160 fleet.

Share this post


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

I get all that...But they run on the (A) just fine and the (A) is just as busy of a line than the (E)....So the same should apply to the (A) in those terms...All im saying they ran on the (E) before with no problem...

The (A) does not run fine largely thanks to the minute long dwells produced by the R46. Forget reliability, I shudder to think what R46s on the (E) would do to Queens Boulevard capacity -- remember, dwell times play a major role in determining throughput. 

Share this post


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

Is there any difference between dwells on the 46s and 68s? 

Aside from passenger loads by route, I don't see why there would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

I'm thinking, would a POP system for the SIR work? Instead of installing turnstiles at every station, adding SBS like machines and having fare inspectors along the SIR would bring back more revenue from the SIR.

Problem with that is it runs relatively infrequently. So if a local bus pulls in just as a train is pulling in, you'll have people scrambling to get a ticket, holding the doors, etc

13 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

IIRC, Tompkinsville originally was fare free before customers discovered a loophole by walking to St. George and not paying the exit fare.

The opposite. They would walk from Tompkinsville to avoid the fare at St. George (less often in reverse because you would usually have to sprint to catch a train)

12 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

They have also considered adding turnstiles at Grasmere due to the bus connection. Keep in mind that like 97% of riders use it to St. George. I wonder what they will do with OMNY.

If they pay for the bus then the MTA gets their money anyway. Not sure what the point would be

10 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

Why would the fare inspectors leave? The (MTA) should know that once fare inspectors leave, people won't pay the fare. POP systems never work w/o fare inspectors 24/7.

I wonder how that would work, since if it requires someone to pay double fare to go to Grasmere to St. George, people wouldn't be so happy. Also I highly doubt the number of riders using it to St. George is 97%. There's no way to tell ridership levels between Stapleton and Tottenville since there's no way of counting ridership. A POP system would help in showing ridership levels for those stops and the (MTA) can adjust service levels accordingly.

From what I understand they do random passenger checks for the whole day. But I agree, it's not THAT high of a percentage going to St. George. Maybe 70-80%, not 97%

47 minutes ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

(Also posted in Bus Random Thoughts)

Is there a relatively easy way to get from the upper east side (82 St/Park Av) to the GWB Bus Terminal? Thanks!

As I said in the other thread, the M3/4 or M98 would be your best bet. If you want to take a subway ride you can either take the M79 to CPW for the (1) and take that to 181st Street, or you can take the M79 to CPW for the (B) or (C) and then walk across the platform at 125th Street for the (A). (You can also just walk from the (C) at 168th)

But I would recommend the local bus directly as stated before.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


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

The (A) does not run fine largely thanks to the minute long dwells produced by the R46. Forget reliability, I shudder to think what R46s on the (E) would do to Queens Boulevard capacity -- remember, dwell times play a major role in determining throughput. 

You know how the dispatchers and crews on that line are. They'll do whatever it takes to avoid running as many R32s on the line as possible for obvious reasons. But with the R179s finally on the spot and the upcoming R211 order, this problem will no longer occur with the (A).

I agree that the (A) is a pretty crowded line enough to warrant mostly or fully 60 feet equipment. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is busier than the (E) is like the person I responded to said.

Unless you can tell me otherwise since you do seem like you work for the (MTA) ever since I first met you in this site.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 entry/exit points is significantly better than 32 entry/exit points, especially on the A which picks up many riders at its Brooklyn and eastern portion

Share this post


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

Dwell times not even a big issue anymore...In my opinion they should put a couple of  r46 on the (E) and put a couple more 160 on the (R)...Its not gonna kill the entire (E) line if they done that...The latest signal problems have been...Just my opinion

I take it you haven't been on the (E) along 53rd during peak rush hour when everyone and their mother is getting of their offices in East Midtown and trying to get to PABT/Penn Station at the same time...

An R46 (E) at that time would be an absolute disaster. Dwell times are already enough of a problem along that stretch of the (E) with all R160s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RR503 said:

The (A) does not run fine largely thanks to the minute long dwells produced by the R46. Forget reliability, I shudder to think what R46s on the (E) would do to Queens Boulevard capacity -- remember, dwell times play a major role in determining throughput. 

 

8 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I take it you haven't been on the (E) along 53rd during peak rush hour when everyone and their mother is getting of their offices in East Midtown and trying to get to PABT/Penn Station at the same time...

An R46 (E) at that time would be an absolute disaster. Dwell times are already enough of a problem along that stretch of the (E) with all R160s.

LOL...I have plenty of times ATH ....I mean an absolute disaster if a set or 2 show up...Wow you talking like the R46 cant move or something...:lol:...Trust me im well aware of the dwell time crap...Thats why the (E) for the most part have been 10 cars.....Well they run fine to me on the (A).....Signal problem,increase wait times,and breakdowns, also play a major role lets not forget....All that dwell time to me is not an issue...Safety is...Have a good day gentlemen   

Share this post


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

They ran serveral R46 on the (E) when the r32s needed work.....some of yall  kills me with the dwell time crap..Wth all theses other DELAYS...Dwell times not even a big issue anymore...In my opinion they should put a couple of  r46 on the (E) and put a couple more 160 on the (R)...Its not gonna kill the entire (E) line if they done that...The latest signal problems have been...Just my opinion

Honestly, the (A) has many other problems beside dwell time, signal problems as you said and the south channel bridge for instance are big concerns as well. That said, dwell time is still pretty impactful on train service since longer times do add up. Even if this was short term (QBL lines have to be ntt soon with cbtc), R46's would still hurt the (E) hard, the line gets more passengers than the already crowded (A) which would amplify dwell (and bog down quicker service on the (E)). Removing R46's from the (A) to go to the (E) also cuts additional (A) service, which doesn't make any of the (A)'s issues any better either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long a train spends in the station, aka dwell time, can ruin service just as much as a bad signal.

Edited by RedLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next few days may be interesting to see a refurbished R62A to be in-service on the (6) 

Edited by Calvin
Imagine that

Share this post


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

Why does the :15x15_px_02: and (3) move slowly between Canal St and Chambers St going downtown?

The curve south of Franklin Street and the crossovers before Chambers Street.

IMO, however, the timers should begin at Franklin Street, where the T/O should apply the brakes beginning at the north end of Franklin Street and screeched to a near-halt at the south end of the station, then pick up speed again the rest of the way to Chambers Street.

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.