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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abba said:

Yes many trains are starting to run much better headway’s.  Subway time shows the (7) running about every 6-8 min or so this morning  also the (J) Is every 10 min . I think this pandemic will end much quicker then people think . At least the worst of it . 

I read a few days ago that there were 5,000 workers that just finished going through mandatory quarantine so I assume that's why service is much better recently.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Anyone noticed that Londons Underground trains propulsions shut off when going over third rail gaps? Why does that happen there but not here? Sounds pretty cool when it picks back up. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WszUxHQnUZw&list=PLMx64TWEl8gPuTZuffknIwxpJN5hbqK-a&index=41

 

Doesn’t the Underground use a 4-rail setup?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Doesn’t the Underground use a 4-rail setup?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the (3) and (4) trains get 100% NTT-ed when the R262 comes in. That would make the Nostrand line and the Eastern Parkway/Livonia line CBTC-ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Yankees4life said:

I wonder if the (3) and (4) 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 (4)'s already 100% NTTs, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Yankees4life said:

I wonder if the (3) and (4) 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 (4) will be getting the R262s and the (3) will get the 142 or 142As from the (4), so yes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 (F)  back to 53rd  and the (M) supposedly  to relieve the stress of the interlocking at  36th street 

Edited by BreeddekalbL
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Why is the (3) still running? Extend the (4) to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

Dare I ask for context?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, OrionVIIonM79 said:

Why is the (3) still running? Extend the (4) to Flatbush and 148 St people can walk or take shuttle buses

And make the (2) and (4) lines even MORE crowded in the middle of a pandemic with those displaced (3) riders?... Great idea! (not)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 (F)  back to 53rd  and the (M) 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 (3) still running? Extend the (4) 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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Thumbs Up 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

(E)  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

(F)  179th-QB EXP-53rd-6th LCL

(G)  179th-QB LCL-Crosstown

(R)  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

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

 

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

(E)  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

(F)  179th-QB EXP-63rd-6th LCL

(G)  Court Square-Crosstown

(R)  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

(V)  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 (F) 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 (V) service had to share track with the (R), then the (E), and finally the (F).  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 (R) 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 (F) will still have to run via 63rd late nights and weekends because of the (M) not running.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Wasn’t the whole point of (F) on 63rd and (E) 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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Deucey said:

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

I thought the whole (F) on 63rd bit was to promote the (V)...

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 by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was a combination of route consistency, and giving the (V) 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 (F) on 53rd and sent the (V) to 63rd, then I think even fewer people would've used the (V).  In 2001 that made sense, but now it's 19 years later so it makes sense to reevaluate.  If the (E)(F) express go via 53rd, and the (M)(R) 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 (G) run to Forest Hills again, and replace that with a 2nd Ave route when Phase 3 opens.

Share this post


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

I think it was a combination of route consistency, and giving the (V) 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 (F) on 53rd and sent the (V) to 63rd, then I think even fewer people would've used the (V).  In 2001 that made sense, but now it's 19 years later so it makes sense to reevaluate.  If the (E)(F) express go via 53rd, and the (M)(R) 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 (G) run to Forest Hills again, and replace that with a 2nd Ave route when Phase 3 opens.

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

Share this post


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

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

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

I don't think I really need to talk about the (M)'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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

(E)  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

(F)  179th-QB EXP-53rd-6th LCL

(G)  179th-QB LCL-Crosstown

(R)  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

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

 

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

(E)  Jamaica Center-QB EXP-53rd-8th LCL

(F)  179th-QB EXP-63rd-6th LCL

(G)  Court Square-Crosstown

(R)  71st-QB LCL-60th-Bway LCL

(V)  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 (F) 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 (V) service had to share track with the (R), then the (E), and finally the (F).  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 (R) 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 (F) will still have to run via 63rd late nights and weekends because of the (M) not running.

*Starts jumping giddly*

Does this mean we could have the (G) back!? YAY!!

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.