Jump to content

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Ugh, guys really. Once again, the issue is not lack of (C) service to and from Lefferts Blvd. I don't know how the hell that came into this conversation to be honest. The issue is the (A) transiting from its evening 10-minute headway to its early overnight 15-minute headway once the (C) stops running, resulting in half-hour headways on both branches instead of 20-minute headways. I looked at the printed schedule for the line more and more carefully. By midnight, headways on both branches head back to 20 minutes with the Lefferts Blvd Shuttle beginning its run.

The full (A) should be running every 20 minutes on the entire line (Far Rockaway-Inwood) along with the Lefferts Blvd Shuttle so that neither branches are getting service every half an hour just for a short period of time.

Yes we can better schedule the (A) to Lefferts, but how can we do that since capacity is limited. We need to think outside the box here?

Hopefully your comment was not in response to mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
19 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Yes we can better schedule the (A) to Lefferts, but how can we do that since capacity is limited. We need to think outside the box here?

Hopefully your comment was not in response to mine.

You're not even listening/reading though. How is capacity limited? Are you aware that service on both branches is much less frequent at all hours of the day including rush hour? And yes my comment was in response to yours and the two posters above.

You can check the northbound weekday (A) schedule or the Trip Planner itself, including Saturday and Sunday. After 9 p.m., trains leave both Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway respectively at 25+ minute headways. Then from 10 p.m. until midnight, trains are leaving their respective terminals at roughly half-hour headways, resulting in 15-minute headways west of Rockaway Blvd onwards. I'm saying that headways should be 20 minutes on the entire line in both directions (Far Rockaway-Inwood) after the (C) stops running.

Running the (C) to/from Lefferts Blvd is more expensive than just simply rescheduling the (A) properly to mesh with the 10-minute headways on the (C) and (D) lines and the 20-minute headways on the (S) Rockaway Park Shuttle.

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

I swear, there has to be a law on these forums that the C to Lefferts idea MUST be brought up every 2 weeks or so. No matter how many times it gets disproven, explained, or argued against, we always end up here. 

Yeah I understand that but I’m not saying that the (C) be permanent all day service to Lefferts. Trust me I understand why it won’t work as a permanent extension which is why I only mentioned to have it run over there only in the evening to supplement the horrible (A) service in the evening. Honestly let’s face it, does anyone think that the (MTA) is going to increase (A) service just to maintain 10-12 minute headway’s to the separate branches. That would mean that the (A) would have to continue to run on at least 5-6 minute headway’s well into the evening which is something I don’t see this agency doing. This agency is so focused on saving money every chance they can that they would rather people get off at Rockaway Blvd and take the Q52 or the Q112. That Far Rockaway extension for the Q52 is bound to happen one day, the question is when will the MTA finally go ahead and do it.  
It would make perfect sense just to have more (A) service but the MTA is always tight on money, so the best I can see them doing is having the (C) on the weekdays from 8pm to whenever it stops running serve Lefferts and the (A) sticks with Far Rockaway. This way you don’t have these huge gaps. However riders would still have to deal with the infrequent service on the weekends which is just as bad. 

What really cripples service on the Fulton line is that it’s tracks cannot be used to its fullest potential because the local tracks end at Court Street instead of continuing into Manhattan. We all know the capacity the 4 tracked Queens Blvd Line has and the Fulton Street Line would have similar capabilities if the local tracks didn’t cut off within Brooklyn and Manhattan. What the MTA would need to do is build another tunnel to connect the local tracks from Court Street to World Trade Center which would heavily increase the capacity that the line can hold. That way you can have a service run to Far Rockaway and a service to Lefferts with the (C) continuing to local run to Euclid with possibly more frequent service since it wouldn’t have to merge with the (A)

Edited by NewFlyer 230
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Yeah I understand that but I’m not saying that the (C) be permanent all day service to Lefferts. Trust me I understand why it won’t work as a permanent extension which is why I only mentioned to have it run over there only in the evening to supplement the horrible (A) service in the evening. Honestly let’s face it, does anyone think that the (MTA) is going to increase (A) service just to maintain 10-12 minute headway’s to the separate branches. That would mean that the (A) would have to continue to run on at least 5-6 minute headway’s well into the evening which is something I don’t see this agency doing. This agency is so focused on saving money every chance they can that they would rather people get off at Rockaway Blvd and take the Q52 or the Q112. That Far Rockaway extension for the Q52 is bound to happen one day, the question is when will the MTA finally go ahead and do it.  
It would make perfect sense just to have more (A) service but the MTA is always tight on money, so the best I can see them doing is having the (C) on the weekdays from 8pm to whenever it stops running serve Lefferts and the (A) sticks with Far Rockaway. This way you don’t have these huge gaps. However riders would still have to deal with the infrequent service on the weekends which is just as bad. 

What really cripples service on the Fulton line is that it’s tracks cannot be used to its fullest potential because the local tracks end at Court Street instead of continuing into Manhattan. We all know the capacity the 4 tracked Queens Blvd Line has and the Fulton Street Line would have similar capabilities if the local tracks didn’t cut off within Brooklyn and Manhattan. What the MTA would need to do is build another tunnel to connect the local tracks from Court Street to World Trade Center which would heavily increase the capacity that the line can hold. That way you can have a service run to Far Rockaway and a service to Lefferts with the (C) continuing to local run to Euclid with possibly more frequent service since it wouldn’t have to merge with the (A)

Still not listening/reading, oh my god dude. I never once said that the (A) should be every 5-6 minutes between 207 Street and Rockaway Blvd (and every 10-12 minutes on the two branches). I specifically said that the (A) should be every 20 minutes on the entire line (Inwood-Far Rockaway) in addition to the Lefferts Blvd Shuttle beginning its run, due to the current schedule (after the (C) stops running), where the full (A) has half-hour headways on the branches yet the mainline has 15 minute headways for about an hour or two until midnight, where everything is then 20 minutes for the rest of the night. Look at the current printed schedule for the (A) line and take a good look at the 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m., and 11:00 p.m. hours leaving both Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd northbound, and you’ll see exactly what I mean.

This has nothing to do with the (C) to and from Lefferts Blvd just to supplement service. Why did you bring that up in the first place anyway? It is more expensive than just simply rescheduling the (A) to how I proposed it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two thoughts:

1) Those R32 (C) trains are still moving. Hit 45mph through the tube Brooklyn-bound today, that's pretty respectable for an R32 

2) Who the hell chose the font on the new (4) line strip maps? It's some weird typeface with no relation to Helvetica or Akzidenz (though the bullets are Akzidenz), and some of the letters are completely bizarre...not to mention entirely inconsistent with the rest of the system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/20/2019 at 10:12 PM, Jemorie said:

You're not even listening/reading though. How is capacity limited? Are you aware that service on both branches is much less frequent at all hours of the day including rush hour? And yes my comment was in response to yours and the two posters above.

You can check the northbound weekday (A) schedule or the Trip Planner itself, including Saturday and Sunday. After 9 p.m., trains leave both Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway respectively at 25+ minute headways. Then from 10 p.m. until midnight, trains are leaving their respective terminals at roughly half-hour headways, resulting in 15-minute headways west of Rockaway Blvd onwards. I'm saying that headways should be 20 minutes on the entire line in both directions (Far Rockaway-Inwood) after the (C) stops running.

Running the (C) to/from Lefferts Blvd is more expensive than just simply rescheduling the (A) properly to mesh with the 10-minute headways on the (C) and (D) lines and the 20-minute headways on the (S) Rockaway Park Shuttle.

That's a service cut on the rest of the (A) to go to 20 minutes between 10-11pm, just run 12-15 minutes to Far Rockaway and start the Lefferts shuttle after the (C) stops running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

1) Those R32 (C) trains are still moving. Hit 45mph through the tube Brooklyn-bound today, that's pretty respectable for an R32 

The R32's have been quite a treasure for NYC.

39 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

2) Who the hell chose the font on the new (4) line strip maps? It's some weird typeface with no relation to Helvetica or Akzidenz (though the bullets are Akzidenz), and some of the letters are completely bizarre...not to mention entirely inconsistent with the rest of the system

I know, right? I first noticed it last year and while I was impressed that they got the (W) and all the new SBS lines in without using stickers, my attention went right to the difference in the "R" in "Rd" between Kingsbridge and Fordham (among many others.)

unknown.pngunknown.pngunknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, paulrivera said:

The R32's have been quite a treasure for NYC.

I know, right? I first noticed it last year and while I was impressed that they got the (W) and all the new SBS lines in without using stickers, my attention went right to the difference in the "R" in "Rd" between Kingsbridge and Fordham (among many others.)

unknown.pngunknown.pngunknown.png

I don’t get the big deal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Snorunts said:

How many R46 trains are on the (F) compared to R160’s? I’ve been seeing a bunch of R46’s lately.

(Sorry if there is a specific thread for this, I hardly follow the subway forums)

 

http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/index.html

 

According to that link the (F) uses 7 sets of 46s daily but it hasn't been updated since 2018..

It probably varies from day to day, especially considering that JAM recently got some 46s from the (A) line...

 

 

Personally it feels like a lot more than 7 sets run on the (F) as of late 

Edited by trainfan22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

 

http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/index.html

 

According to that link the (F) uses 7 sets of 46s daily but it hasn't been updated since 2018..

It probably varies from day to day, especially considering that JAM recently got some 46s from the (A) line...

 

 

Personally it feels like a lot more than 7 sets run on the (F) as of late 

I think it’s closer to 10-12 R46s on average for the (F) and 32-34 R160s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 hours ago, Snorunts said:

How many R46 trains are on the (F) compared to R160’s? I’ve been seeing a bunch of R46’s lately.

(Sorry if there is a specific thread for this, I hardly follow the subway forums)

 

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I think it’s closer to 10-12 R46s on average for the (F) and 32-34 R160s

 

5 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/index.html

 

According to that link the (F) uses 7 sets of 46s daily but it hasn't been updated since 2018..

It probably varies from day to day, especially considering that JAM recently got some 46s from the (A) line...

 

Personally it feels like a lot more than 7 sets run on the (F) as of late 

The total for the (F) has 44 trains but, it may change to 46 total b/c of the <F> . Anyways, the R160 total is around 30-32 (75%) with 14 R46s (25%). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Are those three Corona R62A singles now in permanent work service or are they only there temporarily?

The 4 units are in-work service. 

 

Speaking of refuse service, there was one time an R68 set was attached to a flatbed and EP units but that was a long time ago. 

 

 

Edited by Calvin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Anyone know why the (J) ended at Chambers St before they extended it down to Broad St during the weekends, or why it took so long to extend it?

If I remember correctly, terminating at Chambers Street was convenient because the relay was signaled such that (J) trains could change directions without any switches being controlled by a tower.

(Keyword, "if I remember correctly". If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Anyone know why the (J) ended at Chambers St before they extended it down to Broad St during the weekends, or why it took so long to extend it?

 

9 hours ago, P3F said:

If I remember correctly, terminating at Chambers Street was convenient because the relay was signaled such that (J) trains could change directions without any switches being controlled by a tower.

(Keyword, "if I remember correctly". If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.)

That and also ridership somewhat increase a little at those 2 station especially after they fixed the connection at Fulton St which is a key transfer station For the (J)...Before that the (MTA) in my opinion felt the  (4) (5) at chambers could cover the 2 station on the wkend...That's my take on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which R62As would you say are in worse shape overall. The ones that stayed on the :1:. Or the sets that came from the (6) to the (7) and then back to the (6). The (1) and (6) are very similar because these trains are high ridership locals that run up to The Bronx with the same equipment. 207 St isn't known as a great yard and Westchester isn't known for greatness either. So from a reliablity and mechanical stand point, which sets are better or worse.

Link to comment
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.