Jump to content

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

More R32s might have to be kept. Not only for the Canarsie Tubes, but to beef up W service to Astoria so that more Ns can go up via SAS.

 

 

The way I see it, no more (N) trains will be going up SAS. Ridership in Astoria continues to grow, and most of them don’t want a Broadway Local with no Brooklyn

 

No more room to short turn (W) trains at Whitehall either. 

 

You might have to either increase SAS (Q) services, or think about a possible second line entirely for Second Avenue until the (T) comes into play in 20-25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More R32s might have to be kept. Not only for the Canarsie Tubes, but to beef up W service to Astoria so that more Ns can go up via SAS.

 

Not really. The R211's will be here in 4-5 years.

 

The way I see it, no more (N) trains will be going up SAS. Ridership in Astoria continues to grow, and most of them don’t want a Broadway Local with no Brooklyn

 

No more room to short turn (W) trains at Whitehall either. 

 

You might have to either increase SAS (Q) services, or think about a possible second line entirely for Second Avenue until the (T) comes into play in 20-25 years.

Because of capacity issues, you cannot increase the number of  (N) trains without reducing the number of  (R) or  (W) trains, with then also reduces the number of local trains. Also adding more  (N) or (W) trains up Second Avenue is the easiest way to increase throughput on that line.

 

Additional  (W) trains can always end at 9th Avenue in Brooklyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. The R211's will be here in 4-5 years.

 

Because of capacity issues, you cannot increase the number of  (N) trains without reducing the number of  (R) or  (W) trains, with then also reduces the number of local trains. Also adding more  (N) or (W) trains up Second Avenue is the easiest way to increase throughput on that line.

 

Additional  (W) trains can always end at 9th Avenue in Brooklyn.

 

If ridership on the line really picks up before the R211s come (I am expecting some delays like usual) some additional cars might need to be kept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just install CBTC on the (6) , add more cars, extend the (6) to Co-op City, and build a three-track terminating facility at City Hall to increase Lex service instead. (Kidding, that'll happen only in a foamer's dream.)
 
Seriously, though, the MTA should consider connecting the local tracks to the 63 St Connector tracks at 57 St-7 Av for greater service flexibility. Then the (W) can be extended to 9 Av with increased frequency. A few (N) trains per hour, displaced by increased (W) service, can then go up the 2 Av line to 96 St. I don't predict there'll be much of an effect unless people really want to skip 28 St, 23 St, 8 St, and Prince St during weekdays, in which case some (W) s can go up Second Avenue instead, with all (N) and the rest of the (W) going to Astoria.


For this, I agree you might need to keep some R32s for (N) service. Of course, like all other proposals to improve MTA operations, this will probably take 20 years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just install CBTC on the (6) , add more cars, extend the (6) to Co-op City, and build a three-track terminating facility at City Hall to increase Lex service instead. (Kidding, that'll happen only in a foamer's dream.)

 

Seriously, though, the MTA should consider connecting the local tracks to the 63 St Connector tracks at 57 St-7 Av for greater service flexibility. Then the (W) can be extended to 9 Av with increased frequency. A few (N) trains per hour, displaced by increased (W) service, can then go up the 2 Av line to 96 St. I don't predict there'll be much of an effect unless people really want to skip 28 St, 23 St, 8 St, and Prince St during weekdays, in which case some (W) s can go up Second Avenue instead, with all (N) and the rest of the (W) going to Astoria.

For this, I agree you might need to keep some R32s for (N) service. Of course, like all other proposals to improve MTA operations, this will probably take 20 years...

 

 

Remember, (B), (D), (N), (Q), (R) or (W) can’t have R32 or R42 because of Montague clearance issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's just install CBTC on the (6) , add more cars, extend the (6) to Co-op City, and build a three-track terminating facility at City Hall to increase Lex service instead. (Kidding, that'll happen only in a foamer's dream.)

 

In all seriousness, the MTA said in the FEIS for SAS that the overcrowding on the Lex is actually the biggest reason why they can't run more trains, since people cannot exit/enter in a reasonable amount of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. The R211's will be here in 4-5 years.

 

Because of capacity issues, you cannot increase the number of  (N) trains without reducing the number of  (R) or  (W) trains, with then also reduces the number of local trains. Also adding more  (N) or (W) trains up Second Avenue is the easiest way to increase throughput on that line.

 

Additional  (W) trains can always end at 9th Avenue in Brooklyn.

This is why once work is done on the Myrtle EL next year I split the (M) into (M) and (T) services, with the (T) being additional trains that run to 96/2.  That likely along with any (N) trains that go to 96th solves that issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, the MTA said in the FEIS for SAS that the overcrowding on the Lex is actually the biggest reason why they can't run more trains, since people cannot exit/enter in a reasonable amount of time.

 

28-30 tph are supposed to pass through 125 St during the rush. The biggest bottleneck of the line is at Grand Central, where dwell times of 45-60 seconds prevent more than 25-27 tph from passing through. Having a two-platform configuration instead of the 3-platform design at Penn Station doesn't help either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, (B), (D), (N), (Q), (R) or (W) can’t have R32 or R42 because of Montague clearance issues.

Rumor has it, that that issue may have been fixed.

 

If worse comes to worst, the R32s can go on the (F) or (G) (not that many non-transit enthusiasts would like it).

 

28-30 tph are supposed to pass through 125 St during the rush. The biggest bottleneck of the line is at Grand Central, where dwell times of 45-60 seconds prevent more than 25-27 tph from passing through. Having a two-platform configuration instead of the 3-platform design at Penn Station doesn't help either.

During the AM rush southbound, the (4) is timetabled for every 4-5 minutes for a frequency of 12-15 tph, the (5) every "3-6 minutes" according to the official schedule (which is a huge difference between 10 and 20 tph), and the (6)<6> collectively is timetabled for every 2.5 minutes for a total 24 tph. So on the express tracks at 125 St, there is supposed to be between 22 and 35 tph according to the timetable, which I'll take with a grain of salt since express trains definitely do not run every 100 seconds.

 

During the PM rush northbound, the  (4) is timetabled for every 4-6 minutes for a frequency of 10-15 tph, the  (5) every 5 minutes for a frequency of 12 tph, and the (6) <6> collectively is timetabled for every 3-5 minutes for a total 12-20 tph. The express tracks at 125 St would have 22 to 27 tph, which is around the block signals' capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

During the AM rush southbound, the (4) is timetabled for every 4-5 minutes for a frequency of 12-15 tph, the (5) every "3-6 minutes" according to the official schedule (which is a huge difference between 10 and 20 tph), and the (6)<6> collectively is timetabled for every 2.5 minutes for a total 24 tph. So on the express tracks at 125 St, there is supposed to be between 22 and 35 tph according to the timetable, which I'll take with a grain of salt since express trains definitely do not run every 100 seconds.

 

During the PM rush northbound, the  (4) is timetabled for every 4-6 minutes for a frequency of 10-15 tph, the  (5) every 5 minutes for a frequency of 12 tph, and the (6)  <6> collectively is timetabled for every 3-5 minutes for a total 12-20 tph. The express tracks at 125 St would have 22 to 27 tph, which is around the block signals' capacity.

How many trains ought to go through 125 Street on Lexington Avenue? And how many trains actually go through that station?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then IF the Montague clearance issue is fixed, then can't they just run some (J) trains to Prospect Park or Brighton Beach during the remaining (4) tunnel closures?

That shuttle was useless. It carried air more than anything, and it got confusing to people when the shuttle (J) and regular (J) overlapped between Essex St and Broad St.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28-30 tph are supposed to pass through 125 St during the rush. The biggest bottleneck of the line is at Grand Central, where dwell times of 45-60 seconds prevent more than 25-27 tph from passing through. Having a two-platform configuration instead of the 3-platform design at Penn Station doesn't help either.

Right.  It likely would have been done as three platforms if 59th had been an express station from the get-go (which it was not until 1962). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many trains ought to go through 125 Street on Lexington Avenue? And how many trains actually go through that station?

According to the reports found on www.straphangers.org, on the express tracks, the tph ought to be:

  • AM rush - 25 - 13 (4) trains, 12 (5) trains
  • PM rush - 24 - 14 (4) trains, 10 (5) trains

What it really is:

So I think with 70% of all express trains on time during the rush hour, I'd say the actual frequencies are probably around 17-18 tph, which is really low for a line that was supposed to have about 27 tph.

Also the actual tph may be more than my cited figure, so if there's actually a timetable for 30 tph, then the actual number of trains may only be 21 tph.

 

(Edit: Added breakdown of trains per service.)

Edited by agar io
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, the MTA should consider connecting the local tracks to the 63 St Connector tracks at 57 St-7 Av for greater service flexibility. Then the (W) can be extended to 9 Av with increased frequency. A few (N) trains per hour, displaced by increased (W) service, can then go up the 2 Av line to 96 St. I don't predict there'll be much of an effect unless people really want to skip 28 St, 23 St, 8 St, and Prince St during weekdays, in which case some (W) s can go up Second Avenue instead, with all (N) and the rest of the (W) going to Astoria.

For this, I agree you might need to keep some R32s for (N) service. Of course, like all other proposals to improve MTA operations, this will probably take 20 years...

I can foresee plenty of delays occurring at 57th and 7th, if (W) trains are sent up 2nd Ave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can foresee plenty of delays occurring at 57th and 7th, if (W) trains are sent up 2nd Ave.

I also think that would happen, which is why there should be more (N) service to 96 St and more (W) service to Astoria to cover the (N) s diverted from Astoria to 96th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the reports found on www.straphangers.org, on the express tracks, the tph ought to be:

  • AM rush - 25 - 13 (4) trains, 12 (5) trains
  • PM rush - 24 - 14 (4) trains, 10 (5) trains

What it really is:

So I think with 70% of all express trains on time during the rush hour, I'd say the actual frequencies are probably around 17-18 tph, which is really low for a line that was supposed to have about 27 tph.

Also the actual tph may be more than my cited figure, so if there's actually a timetable for 30 tph, then the actual number of trains may only be 21 tph.

 

(Edit: Added breakdown of trains per service.)

 

According to the schedules, between 7:30 and 8:30 there are supposed to be 14 (4) trains, 14 (5) trains, and 21 (6) trains passing through 125 St. I think the (6) train could be increased to 24 tph without negatively affecting service, since the SAS now exists to take some relief off the local trains. SAS currently only helps the express trains by siphoning riders off at 86 St, preventing further delays.

Link to comment
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.