SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[B35 via Church]

12 hours ago, Collin said:

I don't know when this will end or if the worst is over.  Everything has been so much worse than I even imagined it would be.  If the MTA has figured out how to adequately protect their workers, then that is a huge step towards reopening the city.  They need to be running regular service as more people start returning to work.

The service isn't what I was ever really worried about (unlike one goofy on here, flapping his gums about an MTA shutdown), it was more the behavior of the riders - which, all things considered, have been relatively tame....

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

If by 4 you mean two for the wheels and two for the electricity, then yes. 

Been 20+ years since I did electric shop but if the 4th rail is ground and between the tracks, even though it’s negative voltage, shouldn’t it not have a “gap” except at switches since even if there’s a 3rd rail gap, there’s always a car drawing and sending power from it unless the gaps longer than a train’s length?

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

13 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Been 20+ years since I did electric shop but if the 4th rail is ground and between the tracks, even though it’s negative voltage, shouldn’t it not have a “gap” except at switches since even if there’s a 3rd rail gap, there’s always a car drawing and sending power from it unless the gaps longer than a train’s length?

I'm not entirely sure, but I know every time it shuts off its at a switch. The middle rail is not continuous at switches either. And I believe it shuts off when both motors of the car are off the power, and doesn't come back on until both motors are engaged with the power.

[Yankees4life]

I wonder if the and trains get 100% NTT-ed when the R262 comes in. That would make the Nostrand line and the Eastern Parkway/Livonia line CBTC-ed

[Lex]

28 minutes ago, Yankees4life said:

I wonder if the and trains get 100% NTT-ed when the R262 comes in. That would make the Nostrand line and the Eastern Parkway/Livonia line CBTC-ed

The 's already 100% NTTs, though...

[MTA Bus]

20 hours ago, Yankees4life said:

I wonder if the and trains get 100% NTT-ed when the R262 comes in. That would make the Nostrand line and the Eastern Parkway/Livonia line CBTC-ed

The will be getting the R262s and the will get the 142 or 142As from the (4), so yes.

[BreeddekalbL]

If any to's on here can confirm or deny is there a pick coming soon and supposedly they posting on Facebook group that they will swap the  back to 53rd  and the supposedly  to relieve the stress of the interlocking at  36th street 

Edited April 25, 2020 by BreeddekalbL

[OrionVIIonM79]

Why is the  still running? Extend the  to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

[Lex]

40 minutes ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Why is the  still running? Extend the  to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

Dare I ask for context?

[LegoBrickBreaker101]

1 hour ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Why is the  still running? Extend the  to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

And make the  and  lines even MORE crowded in the middle of a pandemic with those displaced  riders?... Great idea! (not)

[Lance]

9 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If any to's on here can confirm or deny is there a pick coming soon and supposedly they posting on Facebook group that they will swap the  back to 53rd  and the supposedly  to relieve the stress of the interlocking at  36th street 

Why would the F return to 53rd Street? The whole point of the current service pattern is to give 53rd Street both local and express service to Queens. Besides, what's gained here anyhow? Those switches will still be in use regardless, just to a different endpoint. Currently, F trains go between 63rd Street <> Queens Blvd express using the switches near 36 Street. If the F and M were to switch, it'd be almost the exact same thing, with the exception of the M going to the local tracks instead of the express ones.

Also, what serves 63rd Street on the off-hours when the M doesn't run? Sure, the F can run up there in its place, but then you have that situation where trains are running to via different lines depending on the day of the week, which is something the MTA likes to avoid unless otherwise impossible (see current weekend M service).

3 hours ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Why is the  still running? Extend the  to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

So, you're calling for another reduction in service on top of an already reduced service plan? Somehow, that doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, Lance said:

Why would the F return to 53rd Street? The whole point of the current service pattern is to give 53rd Street both local and express service to Queens. Besides, what's gained here anyhow? Those switches will still be in use regardless, just to a different endpoint. Currently, F trains go between 63rd Street <> Queens Blvd express using the switches near 36 Street. If the F and M were to switch, it'd be almost the exact same thing, with the exception of the M going to the local tracks instead of the express ones.

Also, what serves 63rd Street on the off-hours when the M doesn't run? Sure, the F can run up there in its place, but then you have that situation where trains are running to via different lines depending on the day of the week, which is something the MTA likes to avoid unless otherwise impossible (see current weekend M service).

That's exactly what I was saying but Ops Planning seems hellbent on doing it anyway.

[R68OnBroadway]

4 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

That's exactly what I was saying but Ops Planning seems hellbent on doing it anyway.

Is this a pilot or is it permanent? 
Also, any idea as to when this will take effect?

[Collin]

I think the appeal is partial de-interlining of QB.  The express trains would no longer have the 36th Street merge.  However, they tried that back in 2001 when testing service patterns to use with the then new 63rd Street Connector.

 

The first test was as follows:

  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

  179th-QB EXP-53rd-6th LCL

  179th-QB LCL-Crosstown

  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

  71st-QB LCL-63rd-6th LCL (signed as )

 

That didn't work, so the next test was:

  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

  179th-QB EXP-63rd-6th LCL

  Court Square-Crosstown

  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

  71st-QB LCL-53rd-6th LCL

This became the actual service pattern.  

The dilemma was which service would get to stay on the more desirable 53rd Street corridor, and which one would be relegated to the less desirable 63rd Street corridor.  I think the decision was to send the  there so that local station customers could get a one seat ride to 53rd which would better balance out the loading between local and express.  The problem with this is it created multiple merges.  The new  service had to share track with the , then the , and finally the .  I think the benefit of having a local service go via 53rd might not be all that great.  The main benefit of 53rd as opposed to 63rd is that there's a transfer to Lexington.  The other local service, the  already provides access to Lex, and it's better because it goes to 59th which offers both local and express service as opposed to just local.

As for making the switch now, I'd say try it for some amount of time.  The partial de-interlining of the express services could allow for 33+ tph with CBTC that might not be possible otherwise.  If it works, make it permanent, and if it doesn't work, then switch back to the old service pattern.  It should be noted that the  will still have to run via 63rd late nights and weekends because of the  not running.

[Deucey]

Wasn’t the whole point of  on 63rd and  on 53rd to ease crowds and delays of two heavily-used express trains sapping capacity/throughput?

[Lex]

3 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Wasn’t the whole point of  on 63rd and  on 53rd to ease crowds and delays of two heavily-used express trains sapping capacity/throughput?

Well, there's also the issue of route consistency...

[B35 via Church]

11 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Wasn’t the whole point of  on 63rd and  on 53rd to ease crowds and delays of two heavily-used express trains sapping capacity/throughput?

I thought the whole on 63rd bit was to promote the ...

The hoopla surrounding shifting the F via 63rd (when it happened) was quite fun to watch/read across these forums (well not this one in-particular, but RD & Subchat), and blogs as well....

Edited April 26, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Collin]

I think it was a combination of route consistency, and giving the a more desirable route.  They might've wanted to always have one route serve stations from 21st Street Queensbridge through 57th Street.  I think previously it had been several different services depending on time of day.  If they had kept the  on 53rd and sent the  to 63rd, then I think even fewer people would've used the .  In 2001 that made sense, but now it's 19 years later so it makes sense to reevaluate.  If the  express go via 53rd, and the  local go via 63rd and 60th respectively, then the local and express services never merge while in Queens.  It might even be possible with CBTC to have the  run to Forest Hills again, and replace that with a 2nd Ave route when Phase 3 opens.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Collin said:

I think it was a combination of route consistency, and giving the a more desirable route.  They might've wanted to always have one route serve stations from 21st Street Queensbridge through 57th Street.  I think previously it had been several different services depending on time of day.  If they had kept the  on 53rd and sent the  to 63rd, then I think even fewer people would've used the .  In 2001 that made sense, but now it's 19 years later so it makes sense to reevaluate.  If the  express go via 53rd, and the  local go via 63rd and 60th respectively, then the local and express services never merge while in Queens.  It might even be possible with CBTC to have the  run to Forest Hills again, and replace that with a 2nd Ave route when Phase 3 opens.

That would mean that until then  runs to Continental 24/7 if  is still the Whitehall-Bay Ridge shuttle - to keep  on 53rd if changing line routes overnight is a “No” so Roosevelt Island still has service - even though  do exactly that now. (  via Tunnel;  via DeKalb, and  to Essex or 96th)

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Deucey said:

That would mean that until then  runs to Continental 24/7 if  is still the Whitehall-Bay Ridge shuttle - to keep  on 53rd if changing line routes overnight is a “No” so Roosevelt Island still has service - even though  do exactly that now. (  via Tunnel;  via DeKalb, and  to Essex or 96th)

The  situation boils down to internal scheduling and a paltry selection of turning points for  trains. The  only stops there at all because of the track connections.

I don't think I really need to talk about the 's existing situation.

As for this proposal, there is the possibility of short-turning overnight trains at 21st Street, though I'm not convinced that 6th Avenue really needs at least three routes at all times, particularly because of Cuomo's last-minute meddling.

[shiznit1987]

11 hours ago, Collin said:

I think the appeal is partial de-interlining of QB.  The express trains would no longer have the 36th Street merge.  However, they tried that back in 2001 when testing service patterns to use with the then new 63rd Street Connector.

 

The first test was as follows:

  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

  179th-QB EXP-53rd-6th LCL

  179th-QB LCL-Crosstown

  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

  71st-QB LCL-63rd-6th LCL (signed as )

 

That didn't work, so the next test was:

  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

  179th-QB EXP-63rd-6th LCL

  Court Square-Crosstown

  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

  71st-QB LCL-53rd-6th LCL

This became the actual service pattern.  

The dilemma was which service would get to stay on the more desirable 53rd Street corridor, and which one would be relegated to the less desirable 63rd Street corridor.  I think the decision was to send the  there so that local station customers could get a one seat ride to 53rd which would better balance out the loading between local and express.  The problem with this is it created multiple merges.  The new  service had to share track with the , then the , and finally the .  I think the benefit of having a local service go via 53rd might not be all that great.  The main benefit of 53rd as opposed to 63rd is that there's a transfer to Lexington.  The other local service, the  already provides access to Lex, and it's better because it goes to 59th which offers both local and express service as opposed to just local.

As for making the switch now, I'd say try it for some amount of time.  The partial de-interlining of the express services could allow for 33+ tph with CBTC that might not be possible otherwise.  If it works, make it permanent, and if it doesn't work, then switch back to the old service pattern.  It should be noted that the  will still have to run via 63rd late nights and weekends because of the  not running.

*Starts jumping giddly*

Does this mean we could have the  back!? YAY!!

[Collin]

I don't think having the  switch routes late nights and weekends is a big deal.  It would be no different than the  going via tunnel overnight.  As for the , all I'm saying is they'd likely have the capacity on the QB local tracks with CBTC.  Whether it actually happens depends on whether there's actually demand for it and whether the equipment is available.  It would make more sense with the  on 63rd because that would require a double transfer to access the  from a local station.  

[Calvin]

According to the news, Cuomo mentioned that the full L train Project is complete ahead of schedule

Edited April 26, 2020 by Calvin
Media Confirmed

[R10 2952]

13 minutes ago, Calvin said:

According to the news, Cuomo mentioned that the full L train Project is complete ahead of schedule

He should have never interfered with the original plan in the first place; was always skeptical of the revisions he imposed on that project....

[Collin]

I don't know why people would be opposed to a plan that averted a full 18 month closure, still accomplished all the announced objectives, saved taxpayers money, and was completed ahead of schedule and under budget.  Now the techniques learned in this project can be applied to future ones to make the system better.