SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[GojiMet86]

53 minutes ago, Collin said:

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.

It was the whole optics of the situation, back when it was announced. That was really the beginning of the end for Andy Byford, because it signalled that Cuomo was willing to interfere very strongly. Now if this reconstruction actually works without a hitch, I would be willing (grudingly) to give him credit.

[JeremiahC99]

58 minutes ago, Collin said:

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.

I think a lot of the opposition was due to the fact that the original plan was ripping everything  out of the tunnel, and putting new stuff in. If I recall correctly, when the tunnel was flooded, the water entered the duct banks, and the silt dried up inside the structure, hardening like cement, and damaging it from within, so the idea was that train service was to close for 15 months, and that time could be used to demolish the concrete and build a new tunnel wall.

Instead, the new cables were hung from the tunnel wall, which sounds like a good idea from the maintenance point of view. Only the visibly deteriorated walls were demolished, ignoring the underlying corrosion, which could pose problems on the future (I think there was In short, the opposition was due to the piecemeal nature of the work rather than ripping off the bandaid.

And I do agree with you that this should be applied to other projects. In fact, this should be applied for future new East River tunnels (starting with new ones to Williamsburg).

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Collin said:

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.

Because it hardly did. The full closure was planned to address multiple issues at once, but Cuomo decided he knew better, hence the anticipation of a more disruptive closure in the future. (Really, the "solution" is the rough equivalent of slapping a small bandage on a deep, infected wound.)

Edited April 26, 2020 by Lex

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, Collin said:

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.

Because in life, the quality of a project typically comes down to the following three options, and there’s no way to truly know if taking option 3 won’t bite us in the ass after Cuomo’s gone.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Deucey

[MHV9218]

1 hour ago, Collin said:

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.

Read up on the difference between the two, not just what the Cuomo press release says. You're missing the "all" part on the announced objectives. This project was probably between 40-60% of the scope of the original project. It's quite literally designed to allow for its own deterioration – that's why the LIDAR is there. When you strip away all the major work from a project, of course you complete it more quickly and cheaply. But we'll all be paying for it down the line.

[B35 via Church]

6 hours ago, Collin said:

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.

Yeah right...... They've been doing construction on the Manhattan bridge since the day of the flood.

You don't half-ass piecemeal major work that needs to be done & expect the quality of said work to be on par with that of dedicating a specified time frame for uninterrupted work to be done....

[R10 2952]

It reminds me of how the contractors screwed up Montague with the clearance issue, and the MTA never even tried to fix the problem; people will continue making the argument "oh well the R32s and R42s are on their way out anyway", but that doesn't make it right.  Something was botched, and is being left as-is without being corrected.  It's a slippery slope; in a sense, that type of thinking is what brought about the transit system's hell years.  The corner-cutting and deferred maintenance of the '60s became the graffiti and derailments of the '70s.  We can't afford to go back there, but the Authority's managerial complacency could certainly end up pushing things in that direction.

[MHV9218]

12 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

It reminds me of how the contractors screwed up Montague with the clearance issue, and the MTA never even tried to fix the problem; people will continue making the argument "oh well the R32s and R42s are on their way out anyway", but that doesn't make it right.  Something was botched, and is being left as-is without being corrected.  It's a slippery slope; in a sense, that type of thinking is what brought about the transit system's hell years.  The corner-cutting and deferred maintenance of the '60s became the graffiti and derailments of the '70s.  We can't afford to go back there, but the Authority's managerial complacency could certainly end up pushing things in that direction.

I'll have to see it myself, but my understanding is the entire 'racked' zone of the new 14th St. tube is a no-clearance zone now. Of course it makes sense when you think about it – where else were the racks going to go? – but it's another head-scratcher. They really want to have mandatory single-tracking for any repair or maintenance work in those tubes, at any point? People are really going to appreciate when any G/O whatsoever brings back 24 min headways...

[Union Tpke]

On 4/25/2020 at 2:51 AM, 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 

Now the cat is out of the bag, I can share a bit. That was the initial plan for the April pick, and was initially set for last December. This is the deinterlining plan I have hinted at. I didn't think it was still going on.

[Union Tpke]

12 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

It was the whole optics of the situation, back when it was announced. That was really the beginning of the end for Andy Byford, because it signalled that Cuomo was willing to interfere very strongly. Now if this reconstruction actually works without a hitch, I would be willing (grudingly) to give him credit.

Byford was very against the change. Maybe in a few years I can share a bit more on this based on my interactions with him at a few MTA Board meetings.

[R68OnBroadway]

4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Now the cat is out of the bag, I can share a bit. That was the initial plan for the April pick, and was initially set for last December. This is the deinterlining plan I have hinted at. I didn't think it was still going on.

Any idea as to when this service change might take effect?

[Union Tpke]

2 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Any idea as to when this service change might take effect?

I didn't believe it was still happening. I can try to find out more.

[GojiMet86]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Now the cat is out of the bag, I can share a bit. That was the initial plan for the April pick, and was initially set for last December. This is the deinterlining plan I have hinted at. I didn't think it was still going on.

If the  is going to 53rd Street, what will the be doing? Will it take over 63rd Street?

[LGA Link N Train]

11 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

If the  is going to 53rd Street, what will the be doing? Will it take over 63rd Street?

Yea, pretty much. 

With this change, and the upcoming implementation of CBTC on Queens Blvd, I would advocate to make the a full time route along Queens Blvd and 6th Avenue. Depending on how much space is left on 6th Avenue/Williamsburg (in addition to any added space along Queens Blvd), the should also get a TPH boost.

[LGA Link N Train]

Given that there are 8-car 179's not being used because service is suspended, how feasible would it be to run a 9 car set on the (or any other line)?

[Lawrence St]

Anyone know if they are still working on the 42nd St shuttle overhaul project?

[MHV9218]

59 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Given that there are 8-car 179's not being used because service is suspended, how feasible would it be to run a 9 car set on the (or any other line)?

Not very unless new markers and/or boards were installed. If you think about it, the 5-car set would be on the north end in one direction and the south end in another. [Unless you turned on a loop like South Ferry inner or outer, but that's not happening in the B-Division.] So, you'd be fine with the C/R position when the 5-car set was at the front of the train (stop at the 10 car marker, C/R at the usual board 5 cars down the platform). But when the 4-car set was at the front of the train, if you made a stop at the 10-car marker the C/R would be in the middle of nowhere. You could stop at 8-car marker (the C/R would be at the 4-car position, and the cars would just fit, since you the extra 60-feet at the rear would fill the platform), but then you'd have to vary stopping points for the direction of travel. It'd be a little weird and prone to T/O or C/R confusion. When 9-car operation was common in the past (the until quite recently), there were always appropriate markers on the platform. A lot of those are left up on the IRT, but that's it.

[MeeP15-9112]

33 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

When 9-car operation was common in the past (the until quite recently), there were always appropriate markers on the platform. A lot of those are left up on the IRT, but that's it.

When did the  abolish the use of 9-car trains on the  ?

[Collin]

It happened as the R62's from the  were transferred over, displaced by last R142's and R142A's that were delivered.  Originally, the  was supposed to get that last order, and I'm not sure why plans changed.  I think it was somewhat sped up by 9/11 when the  had to go to Brooklyn and the  local, leaving a shortened  as the only express service on 7th Ave.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Given that there are 8-car 179's not being used because service is suspended, how feasible would it be to run a 9 car set on the (or any other line)?

What compelled you to even suggest that?

[LGA Link N Train]

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

What compelled you to even suggest that?

I don't know. It was a random thought that just hit my head. 

[4 via Mosholu]

29 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

When did the  abolish the use of 9-car trains on the  ?

9/11 became the factor as to why ten car consists began to be instituted on the train. This was made possible because at the time in the days after the attacks, Lenox Yard was being reconfigured to support ten car consists. The sets it used were stored north of 137 Street - City College that could support ten cars for the  train there. This happened while the train traveled to East New York at all times, later terminating at Chambers Street on October 1 overnight. Once that reconfiguration was done, coinciding with the rebuild of the Whitehall spur south of Chambers Street, everything went back to normal.

 

23 minutes ago, Collin said:

It happened as the R62's from the  were transferred over, displaced by last R142's and R142A's that were delivered.  Originally, the  was supposed to get that last order, and I'm not sure why plans changed.  I think it was somewhat sped up by 9/11 when the  had to go to Brooklyn and the  local, leaving a shortened  as the only express service on 7th Ave.

You got your information mixed up on the timing of the train becoming ten cars; read what I replied to @MeeP15-9112 for that information. For your second point about the train transferring its 62 sets to the train, it happened because it was determined the East Side branch was more packed than the West Side. Prior to that, it would have been a bit different with the train keeping its 62 and the train getting 142 sets to send its 62A to the train, which needed them to retire the World's Fair 33 and 36. The 142 and 142A were only built according to the mainline configuration, although it would have been possible to be operated via Flushing. But the Steinway tunnel was built with a different set of dimensions, which is why the Steinway and World's Fair Lo Voltage trains, as well as the R12, 14, and 15, were designed for the train in mind.

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

When did the  abolish the use of 9-car trains on the  ?

2001

[vioreen]

I'd recently saw the r160 operating on the G line, how come? 

[Coney Island Av]

50 minutes ago, vioreen said:

I'd recently saw the r160 operating on the G line, how come? 

because the MTA is using them on the  as a way to promote social distancing guidelines better by spreading crowds out given the  is normally four cars. by giving the  eight cars, it would allow riders to follow the latter more to prevent the spread of the virus.