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

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't know if it was a lawsuit. I believe The Routes Not Taken chalked it up to the escalating costs of the IND, which were already increasing after initial plans had come out and before construction had happened.

Similar story is why the (L) is a two-track line. The plan at one point was for four.

I see. I think that anything money-related is more reasonable than the excuse of “all the other subways in the Bronx are three tracks only, why should Grand Concourse get special treatment with four-tracks”.

Lol. Btw, the (A)(C)(B)(D) already experience some delays today, mainly due to the (B) turning at 145 Lower in the middle. This is another reason why Grand Concourse should have been four-tracks, so that today’s (B) service can run to/from  Bedford Park Blvd all day and evening while the (D) remains express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside Hudson Yards on the (7) , this was the first day that the area had hail but, not much salt on the walkways around the Vessel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2019 at 11:10 AM, Jemorie said:

Lol. Btw, the (A)(C)(B)(D) already experience some delays today, mainly due to the (B) turning at 145 Lower in the middle. This is another reason why Grand Concourse should have been four-tracks, so that today’s (B) service can run to/from  Bedford Park Blvd all day and evening while the (D) remains express.

This is another reason why the MTA shouldn’t be using infrastructure in ways not intended. Even with 4 tracks, there would be the same problem—(B) trains terminating at 145 Street. 145 Street is not supposed to be a terminal. Bedford Park Boulevard and 168 Street are designed to terminate trains. The obvious solution is to terminate trains only at Bedford Park Boulevard, which the MTA is too poor to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had 1916-1920 in my (6) train this morning and I can confirm that all five cars have the new single line rollsigns. The entire set except 1918 also has the LED circle/diamonds 

@MHV9218

Share this post


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

I had 1916-1920 in my (6) train this morning and I can confirm that all five cars have the new single line rollsigns. The entire set except 1918 also has the LED circle/diamonds 

@MHV9218

Such a bummer. Waste of money replacing signs that were in perfect shape (and far better designed than the single-line ones). Surprised to hear 1917 finally got the LEDs too, I actually thought they'd stopped adding those. The ex-240th cars have been rehabbed and all without them.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They must’ve SMS’ed 2321-2325 on the (1) in the past week. It unfortunately lost its original rollsigns. However, there are a few sets that were SMS’ed and kept the original rollsigns at 240th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering why the older SMEEs (R32 - R42 & Redbirds) didn't recieve two tone door chimes during their GOH. Most cars got new everything minus the door chime. I dont know how expensive it would be to install those, but if they can get new rollsigns, new doors, new paint, I'm sure they could've squeezed in door chimes. Any insight as to why those cars didn't recieve those Door Chimes?

Share this post


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

This is another reason why the MTA shouldn’t be using infrastructure in ways not intended. Even with 4 tracks, there would be the same problem—(B) trains terminating at 145 Street. 145 Street is not supposed to be a terminal. Bedford Park Boulevard and 168 Street are designed to terminate trains. The obvious solution is to terminate trains only at Bedford Park Boulevard, which the MTA is too poor to do.

If you had re-read my post carefully before quoting, you would have known that I acknowledged that 145th Street was never designed to be a terminal. That is why I specifically said in the post that you quoted that today’s (B) service would have run all day and evening long to/from Bedford Park while the (D) remained express had GC been built as four tracks instead of three.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the (6)! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the (B) to BPB 19/5. 

Share this post


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

There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the (6)! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the (B) to BPB 19/5. 

(MTA)You got (B) to Bedford Park Blvd money? 

In all seriousness, I think they should do it also.

 

Edited by S78 via Hylan
  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the (6)! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the (B) to BPB 19/5. 

Fair enough. It would also increase ridership too even if the (B) is fully local b/w 59 and BPB while the (D) (north of 145) is a one-way express.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the (E) and (J) have the same announcement/FIND for Sutphin Blvd? 

On the (E) it's "Sutphin Blvd, Archer Ave, JFK"

on the (J) its "Sutphin Blvd, JFK Airport"

23 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

(MTA)You got (B) to Bedford Park Blvd money? 

In all seriousness, I think they should do it also.

 

Being that train's are starting to run faster, they can start to extend services by reducing running times for little to no money right?

 

22 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Fair enough. It would also increase ridership too even if the (B) is fully local b/w 59 and BPB while the (D) (north of 145) is a one-way express.

Have they increased speeds on Concourse? Of the Express (D) trains I've been on, they cruised up Grand Concourse in a lethargic manor. 

Speaking of which, how are the speeds on CPW in both directions now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@N6 Limited: Trust me, the Grand Concourse Express is the worst in terms of speed. But I’ll say it is smooth. Central Park West Express is still the same. Heading uptown, T/Os apply the brakes around 96th Street or near 103rd Street, due to the dive at 103rd and the rise at 110th. They apply the brakes again after or around 116th, then pick up speed again into 125th. Heading southbound, T/Os apply the brakes near 81st, pass through smoothly, pick up speed again, apply the brakes again after passing through 72nd due to the nearby slight bend, pick up speed again into 59th.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concourse express is slow N/B cause it's going uphill and uses 68s which makes things worse. From what I heard, the Concourse express is fast S/B. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The concourse express is slow N/B cause it's going uphill and uses 68s which makes things worse. From what I heard, the Concourse express is fast S/B. 

Good lookout. Thanks. Shit last couple of times I rode it, I was soooo tight with going N/B on the (D) Bronx Express. But then I laugh it off eventually lol. I was just too overexcited the first time till I went through it. But yeah, S/B wise, it’s decent.

The 75 footers just have less horsepower combined with the removal of their field shunting. By the way, from what I heard, the R46s are the lightest 75 footers so they are slightly faster. Can anybody please confirm?

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

@N6 Limited: Trust me, the Grand Concourse Express is the worst in terms of speed. But I’ll say it is smooth. Central Park West Express is still the same. Heading uptown, T/Os apply the brakes around 96th Street or near 103rd Street, due to the dive at 103rd and the rise at 110th. They apply the brakes again after or around 116th, then pick up speed again into 125th. Heading southbound, T/Os apply the brakes near 81st, pass through smoothly, pick up speed again, apply the brakes again after passing through 72nd due to the nearby slight bend, pick up speed again into 59th.

The IND built for speed and probably thought the slopes and curves were not going to slow trains down. Current policies are to blame, but one might wonder whether CBTC might restore the original speeds.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CenSin said:

The IND built for speed and probably thought the slopes and curves were not going to slow trains down. Current policies are to blame, but one might wonder whether CBTC might restore the original speeds.

Me too. Call me crazy, but I would love to see the (A) and (D) whiz like rockets N/B on the slope between 103rd and 110th, and fast the rest of the way until 116th. Personally I feel like the only timer (or speed restriction, forgive me @Trainmaster5 if I got the term wrong again lol) should be located at just the south end of 116th Street, where T/Os should apply the brakes until they hit 5-10 mph closer to curve north of the station and pick up speed the rest of the way into 125th. I sometimes daydream on my free time of it being just like that lol.

Sometimes, the (B) and (C) N/B hit 35-37 mph into 125th if it’s a really good T/O. Trust me lol. Other times, it’s the usual 30-33 mph. But still a good speed. But of course, as we both know, the shorter distances between the locals compared to the longer express distances.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

@N6 Limited: Trust me, the Grand Concourse Express is the worst in terms of speed. But I’ll say it is smooth. Central Park West Express is still the same. Heading uptown, T/Os apply the brakes around 96th Street or near 103rd Street, due to the dive at 103rd and the rise at 110th. They apply the brakes again after or around 116th, then pick up speed again into 125th. Heading southbound, T/Os apply the brakes near 81st, pass through smoothly, pick up speed again, apply the brakes again after passing through 72nd due to the nearby slight bend, pick up speed again into 59th.

Wouldn't it make sense to speed down the downgrade and use the momentum to mitigate speed reduction through the climb at 110th? 

The slight bends shouldn't make the T/O's slow down, those IRT trains whip through curves all the time.

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

The concourse express is slow N/B cause it's going uphill and uses 68s which makes things worse. From what I heard, the Concourse express is fast S/B. 

Are there timers and any point which make the train slow down before the incline which makes it harder to maintain speed? Perhaps if the T/O is allowed to speed into the incline it wouldn't be as slow?

53 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Good lookout. Thanks. Shit last couple of times I rode it, I was soooo tight with going N/B on the (D) Bronx Express. But then I laugh it off eventually lol. I was just too overexcited the first time till I went through it. But yeah, S/B wise, it’s decent.

The 75 footers just have less horsepower combined with the removal of their field shunting. By the way, from what I heard, the R46s are the lightest 75 footers so they are slightly faster. Can anybody please confirmed?

Slow express trains are vexing, it defeats the purpose.

Would the R-160s/R-179s get up Concourse faster?

9 minutes ago, CenSin said:

The IND built for speed and probably thought the slopes and curves were not going to slow trains down. Current policies are to blame, but one might wonder whether CBTC might restore the original speeds.

Exactly , it seems like the slowdowns are self defeating, If you're descending only to ascend then slowing down serves what purpose? 

For example, The Merrit Parkway is on rolling terrain, why even attempt to break going down hill, when you're only going to go up hill in 5-10 seconds?

CBTC might restore the original speeds, the (L) gets around those numerous curves without hesitation. I did notice a slowdown in the east river tunnel since CBTC  was first implemented, does anyone know why?

14 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Me too. Call me crazy, but I would love to see the (A) and (D) whiz like rockets N/B on the slope between 103rd and 110th, and fast the rest of the way until 116th. Personally I feel like the only timer (or speed restriction, forgive me @Trainmaster5 if I got the term wrong again lol) should be located at just the south end of 116th Street, where T/Os should apply the brakes until they hit 5-10 mph closer to curve north of the station and pick up speed the rest of the way into 125th. I sometimes daydream on my free time of it being just like that lol.

Sometimes, the (B) and (C) N/B hit 35-37 mph into 125th if it’s a really good T/O. Trust me lol. Other times, it’s the usual 30-33 mph. But still a good speed. But of course, as we both know, the shorter distances between the locals compared to the longer express distances.

To me is odd that there are stretches where locals go faster than expresses simply because there are more stops. If the tracks are side by side and have the same grades/curves/etc then what's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NTTs would certainly go a bit quicker given their younger age, though they tend to struggle by the time they reach the 40-45+ mph mark. The Canarise tubes were slowed down a little bit recently because of damage from Hurricane Sandy or the current policy of speeding or both. Anyone can confirm?

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. A4 track -- the northbound express -- has GT40s from 86th St to 116 St, and then GT35 around the bend to 125. Those indeed do exist for capacity reasons -- under fixed block control, allowing trains to get very fast (especially as they approach high dwell station areas) tends to reduce capacity as your control lines get extremely long, thus requiring slower speeds/ST earlier, etc. CBTC would fix this issue without any capacity penalty and could potentially allow speeds well in excess of 50mph really all the way from 59 to 116 on CPW, but for that we must wait. 

The same is true on Concourse. The R68s are certainly underpowered, and have chronic issues when it comes to hill climbing, but that whole line is slathered in GTs -- two shots and one shots alike. What's interesting from a historical perspective is that many portions of Concourse express actually once had slower time speeds than they do today; a lot of the speed issues there (on a relative level, not an absolute level) are thanks to operator variability, signal positioning -- north of 145, there are some nasty GTs that hide behind curves -- car equipment power and signal reliability. 

  • Upvote 5

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.