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, NewFlyer 230 said:

Why can’t the (C) get extended to Lefferts Blvd during that time In the evening to maintain decent headway’s for each branch. Merging shouldn’t be too much of a problem than it would be if you were to have the (C)  running to Lefferts during rush hour. The only issue I see is the (A) and it’s bunching. 

No....

The (A) just needs to be rescheduled. That is it. So that headways are not longer than 20 minutes east of Rockaway Blvd. If the (A) is on 30 minute headways on both branches, then the headways west of Rockaway Blvd is 15 minutes. That's not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Why can’t the (C) get extended to Lefferts Blvd during that time In the evening to maintain decent headway’s for each branch. Merging shouldn’t be too much of a problem than it would be if you were to have the (C)  running to Lefferts during rush hour. The only issue I see is the (A) and it’s bunching. 

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. 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

I actually proposed a (C) to Lefferts as well in the proposals thread. The difference with my plan is that while the (C) would still go to Lefferts, it would now do so as an express. With new construction, local service on Fulton would be replaced by a rerouted (R), which would operate between Astoria and Euclid Avenue (Lefferts Blvd late nights) on an increased frequency (15 trains per hour). Discontinued segments of the (R) would be replaced by other services. This proposal would allow for an increase in service on all tracks on the Fulton Street Line (15 on the local track and 25 on the express (15 (A) and 10 (C) trains)).

Originally I proposed the (C) go to Rockaway Park and the (A) go to both Lefferts and Far Rockaway. This was dropped because even with the express (C), scheduling issues would occur. This was changed to having the (C) to Lefferts and the (A) split into 7.5 (A) trains to Far Rockaway and 7.5 (H) trains to Rockaway Park, and then changed to my current plan to all (C) trains to Lefferts and all (A) trains to Far Rockaway, along with a modified (S) Shuttle service, which would run between Rockaway Park and Broad Channel at all times except late nights, when service is extended to Euclid Avenue to reduce wait times. There would be an increase in headway’s on shuttle trains, and enhancements to Q53 bus service to make up the loss of (A) trains to Rockaway Park (though I may still have some (A)’s to Rockaway Park. I just got lazy and didn’t add it in to the map).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems that some of the time arrival big screens are going away like Atlantic Av by the (2)(3) Manhattan stairway. Used to show all lines arriving in how many minutes or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone can respond to my question or direct me to the appropriate thread, that would be nice. 😊😊 ^^^^^

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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%). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Q23 via 108 said:

Do you guys think that the (MTA) will use the R46s as work or refuge trains when they retire.

Not a chance. Unlike the R32s, there's no circumventing the limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 75-footers are never seeing use on the refuse fleet. It sort of surprises me that 60-footers are even used, but at least that's been going on for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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

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.