TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2151 Posted August 27, 2012 Via Tunnel??? My earlier post explained that their TPH would be adjusted to allow for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2152 Posted August 27, 2012 Via Tunnel??? I totally missed that. TheSubwayStation, do you have a response to my reply? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2153 Posted August 27, 2012 TheSubwayStation, do you have a response to my reply? This debate is more trouble than it's worth IMO, because whether the on one track would cause too many delays is purely subjective. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2154 Posted August 27, 2012 Most of the delays that you (Brooklyn) mention come from merging - e.g. two trains arrive at 34 St at the same time and one of them has to wait. Once the lines are merged, delays shouldn't be too bad. If it's really an issue, there can be one less train per hour on each line. That would be a 3tph reduction, which is pretty significant in terms of track capacity. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2155 Posted August 27, 2012 Most of the delays that you (Brooklyn) mention come from merging - e.g. two trains arrive at 34 St at the same time and one of them has to wait. Once the lines are merged, delays shouldn't be too bad. If it's really an issue, there can be one less train per hour on each line. That would be a 3tph reduction, which is pretty significant in terms of track capacity. I agree. That is extremely clear from my posts. Why not just eliminate the Q? with the N and R running local as the only lines, there is only ONE merging point at 59th st in Brooklyn. Can't get better than that. Again, my argument is not about capacity IN ITSELF. I said this already. This is to maintain consistency of service for people in Manhattan and Queens. This is more of an indictment of the poor communication and signaling along the Broadway line and the system in general. I could not imagine having all three train lines running local through Downtown BK and Manhattan without there being numerous delays and problems. It is already not that great RIGHT NOW. But let's look at YOUR argument and TheSubwayStation: The capacity argument when looked at deeper falls apart--remember there would be no service...There would probably have to be no fewer than 15 trains per hour (rush hours). According to sources, it's probably closer to 18. This is based on TPH info posted on these forums. Let's be conservative here: 9 trains 10 trains 15 trains ***again, remember, there has to be compensation for the train.*** -------------------------------- That's a lot of trains for two tracks. And can there really be less service? (taking away a few TPH?) People are going to hold doors and trains are going to linger in stations longer. Trains will be more packed. Wait times will increase. Just a friendly critique. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2156 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) But let's look at YOUR argument and TheSubwayStation: The capacity argument when looked at deeper falls apart--remember there would be no service...There would probably have to be no fewer than 15 trains per hour (rush hours). According to sources, it's probably closer to 18. This is based on TPH info posted on these forums. Let's be conservative here: 9 trains 10 trains 15 trains ***again, remember, there has to be compensation for the train.*** -------------------------------- That's a lot of trains for two tracks. And can there really be less service? (taking away a few TPH?) People are going to hold doors and trains are going to linger in stations longer. Trains will be more packed. Wait times will increase. Just a friendly critique. This makes no sense to me, because your plan just takes those and riders and puts them ALL onto the , , , and trains. Why not just centralize the crowding to the ? Your plan wouldn't solve the overcrowding issues; it just shifts them over to other lines. Edited August 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2157 Posted August 27, 2012 The could terminate at Atlantic Av, with riders transferring to the , , , or . The does not have the luxury of terminating at Atlantic Av. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2158 Posted August 27, 2012 This makes no sense to me, because your plan just takes those and riders and puts them ALL onto the , , , and trains. Why not just centralize the crowding to the ? Your plan wouldn't solve the overcrowding issues; it just shifts them over to other lines. Another red herring. Please read my posts carefully. I am not writing to solve "overcrowding issues". Please read what my argument is. i repeated it several times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2159 Posted August 27, 2012 The could terminate at Atlantic Av, with riders transferring to the , , , or . The does not have the luxury of terminating at Atlantic Av. That's a good alternative and would leave only two train lines on the local track, the and . The can then proceed to Astoria and the can continue without service changes. But my general point is that out of the three trains, ONE of them has to be cut lest there be severe issues with delays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2160 Posted August 27, 2012 Another red herring. Please read my posts carefully. I am not writing to solve "overcrowding issues". Please read what my argument is. i repeated it several times. You insist on increasing service to solve overcrowding issues. My point was that there's no reason to do that, since riders will add crowds to another line (because there isn't room for the increased in the tunnel to Manhattan). I'm saying that if you don't increase the , there is enough room in the tunnel. Keep in mind that there are other lines that are very close to 30 TPH, and while they suffer from some delays, they still are okay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2161 Posted August 27, 2012 You insist on increasing service to solve overcrowding issues. My point was that there's no reason to do that, since riders will add crowds to another line (because there isn't room for the increased in the tunnel to Manhattan). I'm saying that if you don't increase the , there is enough room in the tunnel. Keep in mind that there are other lines that are very close to 30 TPH, and while they suffer from some delays, they still are okay. I insist on increasing trains since the trains will not be running along the Brighton Line. I am pretty sure some riders will take the train instead (for much of Brooklyn, they are only about a mile away), but there will be the same crowds waiting for the trains, regardless. This was only for Brighton riders to get to Atlantic terminal (over our crossover that will be rebuilt lol). But at no point would I want it to go to Manhattan with two other lines. I personally see a disaster. Yes, there is "room" but this would be a 4-5 mile stretch with 7 local stops and again, three different lines with different destinations. There wouldn't be one stretch in the system where this is the case. Sure, QB express has nearly 30 TPH and so does the Lex line. But there are important differences-- There are only two lines running on that track. They would not converge TWICE--as the trains would after 57th st. They are running express and are served by local stations. The Broadway line would not have this luxury from that 4-5 mile stretch. Imagine the and running on the same track from 59th st to 125--local. Imagine the and also running on the same track. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2162 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) I insist on increasing trains since the trains will not be running along the Brighton Line. You're completely missing my point, which is that there's no reason to give the Brighton Line more service if Brighton riders will all be transferring to other lines (with no extra service). First of all, your examples with the and aren't valid because those exceed 30 TPH...Second of all, having the on one track works reasonably well on 60 St. Keep in mind, the , , and lines currently have some of the better on-time performance in the system despite the fact that they all converge. Sure, having them share tracks for a longer distance will cause delays (I understand that), but there are plenty of lines that are plagued by some delays but still work well enough. Edited August 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2163 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) Assuming the following: The must be increased to compensate for the cancelled .1 There is no room for the , , , and increased in the tunnel. 2 The cannot be cut from Manhattan. 3 The can't travel over the bridge. 4 Therefore: The , , or (actually more than one of the above) must be cut from the tunnel. Service will end up looking something like this: Suspended Trains run in two sections: .........Bronx to 34 St. .........34 St-Herald Sq to Brooklyn, via Broadway Exp and tunnel. Note that the last stop on some northbound trains is Atlantic Av/Barclays. No trains between Astoria-Ditmars Bl and Atlantic Av/Barclays. Service increased. 1 Otherwise, the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, with 20tph-worth of people waiting for 10tph-worth of trains. Whether they transfer later or not is irrelevant - they have to get on the train along the Brighton Line first. 2 That's very significantly more than 30 tph. 3 The only place a northbound can terminate in Brooklyn is Prospect Park. This would not work because the only connecting line there is the , which has two car trains and cannot run every 4 minutes. 4 We forgot about this aspect of the puzzle IIRC. Edited August 27, 2012 by NX Express 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2164 Posted August 27, 2012 NEEEEEXT: The 4th Avenue Line is impassable b/w 36th Street to Atlantic Avenue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2165 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) 1 Otherwise, the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, with 20tph-worth of people waiting for 10tph-worth of trains. Whether they transfer We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av... Also, the problem with your logic is that you're acting like and trains get completely full at that point, which I highly doubt. My solution for the tunnel: : 6 TPH : 10 TPH : 6 TPH : 6 TPH Edited August 27, 2012 by TheSubwayStation 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2166 Posted August 27, 2012 We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av... Are we working under the assumption that there is a crossover at Atlantic Av to allow said trains to terminate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2167 Posted August 27, 2012 Are we working under the assumption that there is a crossover at Atlantic Av to allow said trains to terminate? Yes, I guess. Although, if we're not, we can still debate whether Brighton can do okay without increasing the and cutting the to Atlantic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2168 Posted August 27, 2012 NEEEEEXT: The 4th Avenue Line is impassable b/w 36th Street to Atlantic Avenue. Suspended south of 34 St to provide capacity to D, N, and Q trains. Trains run in two sections: .........Bronx to 34 St. .........34 St to Brooklyn, via Brighton Local, through Coney Island, and up to 36 St.1 Trains run between Queens and 59 St, via Brighton Local, through Coney Island, and then up to 36 St. 1 No trains between Atlantic Av/Barclays and 36 St. 1If capacity does not permit all of these trains to go through Coney Island, they can terminate at Brighton Beach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2169 Posted August 27, 2012 Yes, I guess. Although, if we're not, we can still debate whether Brighton can do okay without increasing the and cutting the to Atlantic. There's a reason the even runs to Brooklyn - it's well used. Whenever I see Manhattan-bound and trains in the AM rush, they are always crowded. The Brighton Line would probably suffocate without the . 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanInfinity Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2170 Posted August 27, 2012 (edited) NEEEEEXT: The 4th Avenue Line is impassable b/w 36th Street to Atlantic Avenue. Guessing if stations mentioned are useable. Extended to 36 Street via Brighton - West End. No service b/w Atlantic Terminal & Coney Island. Extended to 36 Street via Sea Beach. No service b/w Whitehall Street & 59 Street. (single-tracked Bay Ridge shuttles) If not: Same as above. To Lower East Side-2 Avenue. To Whitehall Street. To 45 Street. Edited August 27, 2012 by TrainFanInfinity 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brooklyn Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2171 Posted August 27, 2012 There's a reason the even runs to Brooklyn - it's well used. Whenever I see Manhattan-bound and trains in the AM rush, they are always crowded. The Brighton Line would probably suffocate without the . Definitely. The is packed during morning rush. So is the . TheSubwayStation is arguing to send the through the tunnel at reduced TPH. Yes, there will be problems, but it won't be so bad. I am arguing that sending all three through the tunnel (even at reduced TPH) WILL BE THAT BAD and that only two of those lines should go. I am essentially willing to sacrifice many Brighton riders one seat ride for the sake of what I project to be horrible delays throughout the lines that will effect more neighborhoods than the ones the line serves. If we had a top of the line communication and signaling along the line, then, maybe I wouldn't be so hesitant to accept his proposal. I just don't think the MTA has the resources to handle over 30 TPH on a LOCAL track for three trains that are going to different destinations. Over the course of so many stops and such a distance. There would HAVE TO BE OVER 30 TPH. The line would need MINIMUM 15 TPH and that's being conservative. The and combined would need to have about 20 TPH. We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av... Also, the problem with your logic is that you're acting like and trains get completely full at that point, which I highly doubt. My solution for the tunnel: : 6 TPH : 10 TPH : 6 TPH : 6 TPH No way.....10 TPH for Brighton is too little. Without trains, it would need probably double that. All of these lines have too few TPH. May I ask you a question? Are you familiar with these lines and their riderships? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanInfinity Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2172 Posted August 27, 2012 Suspended south of 34 St to provide capacity to D, N, and Q trains. Trains run in two sections: .........Bronx to 34 St. .........34 St to Brooklyn, via Brighton Local, through Coney Island, and up to 36 St.1 Trains run between Queens and 59 St, via Brighton Local, through Coney Island, and then up to 36 St. 1 No trains between Atlantic Av/Barclays and 36 St. 1If capacity does not permit all of these trains to go through Coney Island, they can terminate at Brighton Beach. Y no Brighton Express, but 3 Brighton Locals? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2173 Posted August 27, 2012 Y no Brighton Express, but 3 Brighton Locals? That's to avoid switching and minimize merging delays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2174 Posted August 27, 2012 Due to a stalled train at brighton beach northbound trains are unable to pass and a q train had a power failure north of brighton beach Southbound is fine. what would you do? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrainFanInfinity Posted August 27, 2012 Share #2175 Posted August 27, 2012 Due to a stalled train at brighton beach northbound trains are unable to pass and a q train had a power failure north of brighton beach Southbound is fine. what would you do? What northbound track? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.