Mysterious2train Posted October 10, 2011 Share #26 Posted October 10, 2011 Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the to New Lots, the to Utica and select to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush. Send too many trains to New Lots and you'll have congestion all the way back to Junius St or Pennsylvania Av. Send too many trains to Utica and you'll have congestion at and around Franklin Avenue.... similar to what happens now. Diverting trains from Flatbush Avenue isn't all that good of a solution either, since the trains going there will become too crowded. The Brooklyn IRT is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted October 10, 2011 Share #27 Posted October 10, 2011 Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the to New Lots, the to Utica and select to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush. Send too many trains to New Lots and you'll have congestion all the way back to Junius St or Pennsylvania Av. Send too many trains to Utica and you'll have congestion at and around Franklin Avenue.... similar to what happens now. Diverting trains from Flatbush Avenue isn't all that good of a solution either, since the trains going there will become too crowded. The Brooklyn IRT is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #28 Posted October 10, 2011 Some people already had the idea of the to 241st and express south of East 180 and the to Dyre and local south of 180th but politics and community voices plays a big role in where train service go. Just like how Queens Blvd local trains don't run past Forest Hills. I asked because I heard that Nostrand branch can't handle all trains and that's why they send some trains to New Lots. You're right, community voices do play a part in line routes. Dyre riders want the Lex and White Plains Road (including the local stations) want 7th Ave. That's why the routes go the way they do now and not the way they did in the '60s, when the inverse was in effect. As to why the Queens Blvd locals don't continue past 71 Av, well that's because it's not needed or even requested. In the early '90s, the was extended to 179 St in tandem with the and it didn't get too much ridership since Hillside riders wanted express service to Manhattan, not slow-ass local. Concerning the (2)/(5) to New Lots/Utica, you heard correct. Mysterious2train already answered why so i won't do so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #29 Posted October 10, 2011 Some people already had the idea of the to 241st and express south of East 180 and the to Dyre and local south of 180th but politics and community voices plays a big role in where train service go. Just like how Queens Blvd local trains don't run past Forest Hills. I asked because I heard that Nostrand branch can't handle all trains and that's why they send some trains to New Lots. You're right, community voices do play a part in line routes. Dyre riders want the Lex and White Plains Road (including the local stations) want 7th Ave. That's why the routes go the way they do now and not the way they did in the '60s, when the inverse was in effect. As to why the Queens Blvd locals don't continue past 71 Av, well that's because it's not needed or even requested. In the early '90s, the was extended to 179 St in tandem with the and it didn't get too much ridership since Hillside riders wanted express service to Manhattan, not slow-ass local. Concerning the (2)/(5) to New Lots/Utica, you heard correct. Mysterious2train already answered why so i won't do so again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted October 10, 2011 Share #30 Posted October 10, 2011 I do not think politics play a role. On the R160s, they are not able to run on the because of the Rockaway Power Issue, if I am not mistaken. The is a part-time line and thus does not get newer equipment. The and got the R142s due to the constant switching of trains at Flatbush. The and got the R142/As due to the crowding issue on the Lex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68 Subway Car Posted October 10, 2011 Share #31 Posted October 10, 2011 I do not think politics play a role. On the R160s, they are not able to run on the because of the Rockaway Power Issue, if I am not mistaken. The is a part-time line and thus does not get newer equipment. The and got the R142s due to the constant switching of trains at Flatbush. The and got the R142/As due to the crowding issue on the Lex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #32 Posted October 10, 2011 The and trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush. How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it. Sure, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened, but there's reason why the TA should return to that. As for the and getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it? And do you actually think some crews would bother changing the signs? Heh a lot of crews are required to change the signs of when part of the line is cut (Example to 168th) but the sign still shows 242nd. When the was around, not many crews even changed it to the but left some of it as . Not that i care where the cars go, but politics will come in. And them riders won't be happy NTTs are going byebye. So even if a swap is an issue with the 62As, you never know what ill happen.. Maybe the would come up with the | to the Bronx | to Brooklyn, like sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #33 Posted October 10, 2011 The and trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush. How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it. Sure, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it happened, but there's reason why the TA should return to that. As for the and getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it? And do you actually think some crews would bother changing the signs? Heh a lot of crews are required to change the signs of when part of the line is cut (Example to 168th) but the sign still shows 242nd. When the was around, not many crews even changed it to the but left some of it as . Not that i care where the cars go, but politics will come in. And them riders won't be happy NTTs are going byebye. So even if a swap is an issue with the 62As, you never know what ill happen.. Maybe the would come up with the | to the Bronx | to Brooklyn, like sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #34 Posted October 10, 2011 As mark said "we don't know what's gonna happen" and I agree I really don't care what happens. But nobody isn't gonna drill in my head that R62As on the is impossible cause of frequent swapping at Flatbush. the needs the NTTs more than the does and I believe the would put the TA's at Flatbush through hell just to satisfy the sole East Side local needs. sorry I'm having my moments lol... but if the full Second Ave Line was up and running it'll be a different story. @mark: as many terminals the has, those signs would be a good idea especially when it goes to Nereid Av Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Line1291 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #35 Posted October 10, 2011 As mark said "we don't know what's gonna happen" and I agree I really don't care what happens. But nobody isn't gonna drill in my head that R62As on the is impossible cause of frequent swapping at Flatbush. the needs the NTTs more than the does and I believe the would put the TA's at Flatbush through hell just to satisfy the sole East Side local needs. sorry I'm having my moments lol... but if the full Second Ave Line was up and running it'll be a different story. @mark: as many terminals the has, those signs would be a good idea especially when it goes to Nereid Av Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #36 Posted October 10, 2011 As mark said "we don't know what's gonna happen" and I agree I really don't care what happens. But nobody isn't gonna drill in my head that R62As on the is impossible cause of frequent swapping at Flatbush. the needs the NTTs more than the does and I believe the would put the TA's at Flatbush through hell just to satisfy the sole East Side local needs. sorry I'm having my moments lol... but if the full Second Ave Line was up and running it'll be a different story. @mark: as many terminals the has, those signs would be a good idea especially when it goes to Nereid Av The could be the one chosen for the R62As. It doesn't run 24 hours out of 180th and below. Compared to the which runs 24/7. Keeping it on the may just help reduce the mileage from increasing too much and requiring more maintenance compared to the R142/As. You can still have R142s mixed with R62As on the (2)/(5). But having the R62As on the is a BIG QUESTION MARK same for any other routes. Yeah it makes sense to place them there, because of the Red circle, Green diamond, and cuz it doesn't swap other lines, but that doesn't mean it is the one to get it. Its like people saying that the R32s should go on the ( and make the R160 or R68s. Well that didnt happen. And the R32s are sticking with for god knows how long.. The sticking with it makes sense since its easier for them to be sent to 207 for scrapping rather then it running some other line and making a long journey to send them to 207(depends on where the 32s would be at) But as a mention dozens of times, we wait and see, regardless of who says this, which makes sense and blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #37 Posted October 10, 2011 As mark said "we don't know what's gonna happen" and I agree I really don't care what happens. But nobody isn't gonna drill in my head that R62As on the is impossible cause of frequent swapping at Flatbush. the needs the NTTs more than the does and I believe the would put the TA's at Flatbush through hell just to satisfy the sole East Side local needs. sorry I'm having my moments lol... but if the full Second Ave Line was up and running it'll be a different story. @mark: as many terminals the has, those signs would be a good idea especially when it goes to Nereid Av The could be the one chosen for the R62As. It doesn't run 24 hours out of 180th and below. Compared to the which runs 24/7. Keeping it on the may just help reduce the mileage from increasing too much and requiring more maintenance compared to the R142/As. You can still have R142s mixed with R62As on the (2)/(5). But having the R62As on the is a BIG QUESTION MARK same for any other routes. Yeah it makes sense to place them there, because of the Red circle, Green diamond, and cuz it doesn't swap other lines, but that doesn't mean it is the one to get it. Its like people saying that the R32s should go on the ( and make the R160 or R68s. Well that didnt happen. And the R32s are sticking with for god knows how long.. The sticking with it makes sense since its easier for them to be sent to 207 for scrapping rather then it running some other line and making a long journey to send them to 207(depends on where the 32s would be at) But as a mention dozens of times, we wait and see, regardless of who says this, which makes sense and blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman1455 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #38 Posted October 10, 2011 Word around the camp fire is the got NTTs because Bloomberg rides the line on a regular basis. Yeah, I heard the same thing... I wonder how true that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dman1455 Posted October 10, 2011 Share #39 Posted October 10, 2011 Word around the camp fire is the got NTTs because Bloomberg rides the line on a regular basis. Yeah, I heard the same thing... I wonder how true that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #40 Posted October 10, 2011 4AM only to New Lots for the ? Or 4AM onwards? There are some (2)s during the AM rush that head to New Lots. No...what I said was there are FOUR (2)s during the AM rush to New Lots, and FOUR (2)s during the PM rush to New Lots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #41 Posted October 10, 2011 4AM only to New Lots for the ? Or 4AM onwards? There are some (2)s during the AM rush that head to New Lots. No...what I said was there are FOUR (2)s during the AM rush to New Lots, and FOUR (2)s during the PM rush to New Lots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #42 Posted October 10, 2011 I do not think politics play a role. On the R160s, they are not able to run on the because of the Rockaway Power Issue, if I am not mistaken. The is a part-time line and thus does not get newer equipment. The and got the R142s due to the constant switching of trains at Flatbush. The and got the R142/As due to the crowding issue on the Lex. Politics play somewhat of a role in car assignments. As far as service pattern routing, operations planning determines that based on observed ridership patterns and customer service surveys. Bloomberg had nothing to do with NTT's going on the . He did, however, have something to do with the supplemental order of R142A cars going to the as opposed to a west side line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #43 Posted October 10, 2011 I do not think politics play a role. On the R160s, they are not able to run on the because of the Rockaway Power Issue, if I am not mistaken. The is a part-time line and thus does not get newer equipment. The and got the R142s due to the constant switching of trains at Flatbush. The and got the R142/As due to the crowding issue on the Lex. Politics play somewhat of a role in car assignments. As far as service pattern routing, operations planning determines that based on observed ridership patterns and customer service surveys. Bloomberg had nothing to do with NTT's going on the . He did, however, have something to do with the supplemental order of R142A cars going to the as opposed to a west side line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #44 Posted October 10, 2011 The and trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush. Correct. This is a way to get trains off the road easily at both ends of the respective lines to increase the headways after the end of the rush hour. Running tight headways back uptown to lay the trains up there instead serves no purpose. In addition, by having trains in storage by the southern terminals of the Brooklyn IRT, it's easy to put those trains back in service during the PM rush to head back uptown while still serving the congested Lexington and 7th Avenue corridors in Manhattan, as well as Franklin -> Boro Hall in Brooklyn. Then, when the PM rush is completed, the trains can be laid up in their normal yards. The weekday overnight layups to Livonia Yard are used for the following weekday morning when the Dyre - 180th St. shuttle ends. They begin the northbound 5 service so that it doesn't take as long to get started as it would if everyone had to wait for the first through 5 to come out of the Bronx and go all the way down, before coming back uptown again. How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it. Very true. I would never say it's impossible for anything to happen in TA, but it would be downright stupid to put non NTT equipment on either the or lines for just this reason since trains switch at Flatbush so often. As for the and getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it? It's also proximity to the 207th St. Yard for when the oldest cars finally do go to scrap/reef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #45 Posted October 10, 2011 The and trains that end up at New Lots Av go there primarily to lay up, not because of traffic at Flatbush. However, the trains go to Utica and back to the Bronx do do so because of congestion at Flatbush. Correct. This is a way to get trains off the road easily at both ends of the respective lines to increase the headways after the end of the rush hour. Running tight headways back uptown to lay the trains up there instead serves no purpose. In addition, by having trains in storage by the southern terminals of the Brooklyn IRT, it's easy to put those trains back in service during the PM rush to head back uptown while still serving the congested Lexington and 7th Avenue corridors in Manhattan, as well as Franklin -> Boro Hall in Brooklyn. Then, when the PM rush is completed, the trains can be laid up in their normal yards. The weekday overnight layups to Livonia Yard are used for the following weekday morning when the Dyre - 180th St. shuttle ends. They begin the northbound 5 service so that it doesn't take as long to get started as it would if everyone had to wait for the first through 5 to come out of the Bronx and go all the way down, before coming back uptown again. How would that alleviate the issue at all? Regardless, crew members would still have to change 22 rollsigns each swap (including the front and back of the train). Forget the fact that it's time-consuming and would probably aggravate delays, nobody plain wants to do it. Very true. I would never say it's impossible for anything to happen in TA, but it would be downright stupid to put non NTT equipment on either the or lines for just this reason since trains switch at Flatbush so often. As for the and getting the oldest cars, there's not really any politics to it, it's just that other lines need cars first for various, legitimate reasons. Sucks that those two get the older cars, but what are we going to do about it? It's also proximity to the 207th St. Yard for when the oldest cars finally do go to scrap/reef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #46 Posted October 10, 2011 Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the to New Lots, the to Utica and select to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush. There's going to be congestion on all of those lines because of the switches at Rogers Junction. The current configuration of service is actually fairly creative in generally avoiding true disaster delays there. Sending the to New Lots and the to Utica would be problematic because it does not give many riders in Brooklyn a choice during peak hours - ridership figures show that riders on both lines, during peak hours, prefer the choice of "east or west side" without having to transfer. If that occurred and "select 5's" were still sent to Flatbush, you'd have delays because Flatbush couldn't turn all those trains that quickly. In addition, these swaps would leave the without direct, in-service access to Livonia Yard, meaning that put ins would have to mix in with 4's, run light to south of Utica Avenue, and enter the siding there to go in service. Which will cause delays when other trains in the relay prevent the move from being done. The opposite is true for relays. Now if you were to send the to New Lots and the to Utica, that would also be problematic. The cannot go to New Lots without being the local between Franklin and Utica. With the current track configuration, this would mean more delays at Rogers Junction because BOTH the and would need to cross from 2 track to 1 track at the junction, in front of (or behind) a or . As it stands now, a downtown and can leave Franklin Avenue at the same time with no delays. That, and the and , are the only combinations of trains that can leave that station at the same time and not have delays going over the switches. The alternative to doing it that way would be to cross the and over at Utica Avenue, so that the continued to New Lots, and the went into the relay to go back to Manhattan. In theory this could make more sense, but you'd still have delays crossing trains in front of each other at the "south" end of the station - the to New Lots would have to hold to allow the terminating into the relay ahead of it. But it would fit in with the general pattern of "expresses provide farther, faster service while locals provide slower, more localized service" and would eliminate the need for signage denoting overnight service patterns. In addition, and again, it would leave the without direct, in-service access to Livonia Yard, meaning that put ins would have to mix in with 4's, run light to south of Utica Avenue, and enter the siding there to go in service. Which will cause delays when other trains in the relay prevent the move from being done. The track layout is not ideal at all, especially Rogers junction, but the current service patterns actually do a pretty good job of working as best as possible with all the bottlenecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 10, 2011 Share #47 Posted October 10, 2011 Which is my point "congestion". Even with R142s on the there's still gonna be congestion on Flatbush. I wonder if sending the to New Lots, the to Utica and select to Flatbush was ever thought of to ease congestion on Flatbush. There's going to be congestion on all of those lines because of the switches at Rogers Junction. The current configuration of service is actually fairly creative in generally avoiding true disaster delays there. Sending the to New Lots and the to Utica would be problematic because it does not give many riders in Brooklyn a choice during peak hours - ridership figures show that riders on both lines, during peak hours, prefer the choice of "east or west side" without having to transfer. If that occurred and "select 5's" were still sent to Flatbush, you'd have delays because Flatbush couldn't turn all those trains that quickly. In addition, these swaps would leave the without direct, in-service access to Livonia Yard, meaning that put ins would have to mix in with 4's, run light to south of Utica Avenue, and enter the siding there to go in service. Which will cause delays when other trains in the relay prevent the move from being done. The opposite is true for relays. Now if you were to send the to New Lots and the to Utica, that would also be problematic. The cannot go to New Lots without being the local between Franklin and Utica. With the current track configuration, this would mean more delays at Rogers Junction because BOTH the and would need to cross from 2 track to 1 track at the junction, in front of (or behind) a or . As it stands now, a downtown and can leave Franklin Avenue at the same time with no delays. That, and the and , are the only combinations of trains that can leave that station at the same time and not have delays going over the switches. The alternative to doing it that way would be to cross the and over at Utica Avenue, so that the continued to New Lots, and the went into the relay to go back to Manhattan. In theory this could make more sense, but you'd still have delays crossing trains in front of each other at the "south" end of the station - the to New Lots would have to hold to allow the terminating into the relay ahead of it. But it would fit in with the general pattern of "expresses provide farther, faster service while locals provide slower, more localized service" and would eliminate the need for signage denoting overnight service patterns. In addition, and again, it would leave the without direct, in-service access to Livonia Yard, meaning that put ins would have to mix in with 4's, run light to south of Utica Avenue, and enter the siding there to go in service. Which will cause delays when other trains in the relay prevent the move from being done. The track layout is not ideal at all, especially Rogers junction, but the current service patterns actually do a pretty good job of working as best as possible with all the bottlenecks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 11, 2011 Share #48 Posted October 11, 2011 This 'politics' thing has been beaten to death. Some of you are making too big an issue over it. There is no 'conspiracy' banning R62As from going to the . It makes sense the R62As go to the as it would be a direct swap and those R62As have the LEDs so they can be changed for local or express easily as it does now for the . The would be the other option since it doesn't share any trains with any other lines. R62s fill the entire line and the already has R62As, so there's not many other MLs you can send them to other than the . Yes things can change, but for now: wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 11, 2011 Share #49 Posted October 11, 2011 This 'politics' thing has been beaten to death. Some of you are making too big an issue over it. There is no 'conspiracy' banning R62As from going to the . It makes sense the R62As go to the as it would be a direct swap and those R62As have the LEDs so they can be changed for local or express easily as it does now for the . The would be the other option since it doesn't share any trains with any other lines. R62s fill the entire line and the already has R62As, so there's not many other MLs you can send them to other than the . Yes things can change, but for now: wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted October 11, 2011 Share #50 Posted October 11, 2011 Yes politics can come into play with regards to assignments. No, politics is almost never the only reason for an assignment. No, politics is not behind almost any assignment railfans claim they are behind. And no, the C line does not have old cars because 207 is where old cars are retired from. The R44s went to Concourse Pitkin and Coney Island for storage after retirement, many of which came from 207. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.