Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[RR503]

The  train runs around 200 cars. There are also around 200 R32s. If you’re leaving 68s, where are you gonna put the other 32s? Do you not see the economies of scale that come with keeping the fleet in one place? 

And even if you do leave 68s, the chance of a set of 32s getting stuck there — however low — is one that many would not be willing to take, especially given there are better alternatives. Give up. No 32s on the southern div. 

I would put them on the  — yes, it’s underground, but it’s a short route with only 1 merge, minimizing the 32s damage potential — something that putting them on the  or  would not do. 

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

R32's on the Rock Park shuttle won't happen because it's an OPTO line.  Adding conductors will increase labor costs.

R32's on the G is a non starter, either today or when the L shuts down.  The line is mostly underground and R32's are not good with air conditioning under that scenario.

There aren't really any other options. Labor costs will increase, but the lack of damage costs from an R32 breaking down somewhere else should cover it.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Here we go, the closest we can get to evidence that the MTA is at least considering R32 s. 

On 9/13/2016 at 1:29 PM, East New York said:

 

 What I did was reach out to the MTA and request the current documented information again today so I could cross-reference once again. After I went over all that, I then asked another RTO employee in the know what information they had, and to break down everything to me. I may have been a bit off with the numbers, but I have confirmed my basic information is correct.

 

With that being said, thank's to you all, I now have update to add in as everything was explained to me detail by detail just a few short minutes ago. With confidence, I can now say the following information is in fact confirmed from Car Equipment. Effective 9/13/16 12:55pm EST

 

1.) 4 10-car trains to the . 38 R179 8-car trains to the . The only if needed by ENY Yard.

 

2.) All 50 R42's and 112 R32's will be replaced immediately on the line. Approximately 110 cars (spare included) will remain for rush hour and week day express service. The remaining cars will be on storage reserve and scrapped. 

 

3.) Remaining revenue R32's for Rush hour and weekday express ONLY service will be transferred to the line. (I was about to ask all you train buffs why the hell the B would get old R32's. Now I understand. Turns out thats not a rumor. It's the tentative plans until further notice.)

 

4.) Train will then shut down, displacing R160 sets in order to increase service elsewhere. 

I guess I'm one of the only ones that actually remembered this post. Just didn't have the time to look for it until now.

[R42N]

2 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

And who are some of these fairly credible people?

Dj, The same guy who replied to you about the same exact argument you had in August:

[Dj Hammers]

On 11/6/2017 at 7:04 PM, RR503 said:

Very interesting. @Dj Hammers care to chime in? 

To clarify, *6* car R32 (and R42 for that matter) consists are banned from operating on the G line, per bulletin.

 

There's no reason an 8 or 10 car consist of R32s can't run on the  line, as will be seen eventually.

 

Also, get your shots of R32s and R160s on the C now before it starts using R46s..

Similar deal for the R32s on the J.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Dj Hammers

[P3F]

7 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

R32's on the Rock Park shuttle won't happen because it's an OPTO line.  Adding conductors will increase labor costs.

Aside from Rockaway Park Terminal, all door-openings on the shuttle occur on the right-hand side of the train.

At Rockaway Park, would the train operator be able to open & close the doors from the rear cab in the first car of the train? If so, it seems like it would be a minor delay that can be accounted for by the line's low-frequency schedule.

[VIP]

5 hours ago, Dj Hammers said:

To clarify, *6* car R32 (and R42 for that matter) consists are banned from operating on the G line, per bulletin.

 

There's no reason an 8 or 10 car consist of R32s can't run on the  line, as will be seen eventually.

 

Also, get your shots of R32s and R160s on the C now before it starts using R46s..

Similar deal for the R32s on the J.

When’s the swap planned to go in effect??

[Lance]

Guys, I'm going to have to insist that you continue the conversation in the relevant threads. None of the recent posts even tangentially reference the Second Ave line or its services. Thread shifts are natural, but as there are several threads pertaining to the various car fleets, I'd like to keep the threads neat and to their primary topics.

Thanks for your cooperation.

[LGA Link N Train]

Anyways, back to The Second Avenue Subway, who wants to talk about 14 St - 2 Av proposed station 

[Union Tpke]

2 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways, back to The Second Avenue Subway, who wants to talk about 14 St - 2 Av proposed station 

What about it? If you are talking about the layup tracks, I hope they come with a provision for a line through Williamsburg to go via Utica.

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What about it? If you are talking about the layup tracks, I hope they come with a provision for a line through Williamsburg to go via Utica.

For some reason, I  would have to disagree on doing that. Now while Williamsburg does need more subway service, I don't feel that second avenue would be a good choice. Unless we're talking about the  and reorganizing the Chrystie Street connection (of which I feel should happen)

[RR503]

What do you have against leaving space for future decision?

Whether or not you agree with Utica, it’s very possible that another line will be built off of SAS, so it only makes sense to leave provisions for it given that’s the most sensical detachment point. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, RR503 said:

What do you have against leaving space for future decision?

Whether or not you agree with Utica, it’s very possible that another line will be built off of SAS, so it only makes sense to leave provisions for it given that’s the most sensical detachment point. 

The Choiceof using Second Avenue for this option, I'd rather use 6th while leaving the in the southern division 

[RR503]

Just now, LGA Link N train said:

The Choiceof using Second Avenue for this option, I'd rather use 6th while leaving the in the southern division 

If you’re talking about the vanshnook 2nd ave plan, you can’t do it halfway — that would require even more insanity than what he proposes. 

Aside from that, you’re missing what I’m saying. Sure, you may think Utica is better done off some other trunk (I disagree, but that’s a different discussion), but I repeat, what is wrong with provisioning for expansion? It’s not like the stubs *have* to be used for a Utica line — they can be for some line that none of us have thought of.

Planning ahead is good. 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

The Choiceof using Second Avenue for this option, I'd rather use 6th while leaving the in the southern division 

Williamsburg already has access to the Sixth Avenue line, and all the slots on that trunk are spoken for anyways.

[Porter]

On 11/15/2017 at 6:09 PM, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways, back to The Second Avenue Subway, who wants to talk about 14 St - 2 Av proposed station 

But...to which station should it connect? I'm mostly concerned about having an connection at Second Avenue—a very crucial transfer.

Is there really a problem with using the "Shallow Chrystie Option"? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just use the existing tunnels and have cross-platform transfers at Grand Street?

Edited November 18, 2017 by Skipper

[Lance]

3 Avenue. The station footprint stretches from Third Ave to Second Ave, whereas the footprint of the 1 Avenue station is between First Ave and Avenue A. In regards to the connection with the , I think that was always included since the line would literally run below the 2 Avenue line station.

The problem with a shallow Chrystie option is that it's more disruptive to the neighborhood than the deep option. Of course, when the deep option takes forever, like it did with the first segment of the Second Ave line, the benefits negate themselves.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

55 minutes ago, Lance said:

3 Avenue. The station footprint stretches from Third Ave to Second Ave, whereas the footprint of the 1 Avenue station is between First Ave and Avenue A. In regards to the connection with the , I think that was always included since the line would literally run below the 2 Avenue line station.

The problem with a shallow Chrystie option is that it's more disruptive to the neighborhood than the deep option. Of course, when the deep option takes forever, like it did with the first segment of the Second Ave line, the benefits negate themselves.

 

I personally don't like the deep option for Chrystie Street. If only we could invent a TBM that specializes in/adresses these types of issues 

[Porter]

1 hour ago, Lance said:

The problem with a shallow Chrystie option is that it's more disruptive to the neighborhood than the deep option. Of course, when the deep option takes forever, like it did with the first segment of the Second Ave line, the benefits negate themselves.

Wouldn't they only have to excavate the street itself and the adjacent Lions Gate Field? Considering what the and the city does in other neighborhoods, that's not very disruptive at all. It's not like they'd have to demolish or even temporarily close any buildings. Well, Phase 4 is so far off that they'll have plenty of time to think about it and change plans. I expect my grandchildren to use phase 4 as young adults, and I'm in my 20s.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Skipper said:

Wouldn't they only have to excavate the street itself and the adjacent Lions Gate Field? Considering what the and the city does in other neighborhoods, that's not very disruptive at all. It's not like they'd have to demolish or even temporarily close any buildings. Well, Phase 4 is so far off that they'll have plenty of time to think about it and change plans. I expect my grandchildren to use phase 4 as young adults, and I'm in my 20s.

The buildings are quite old, and the MTA certainly doesn't have the money to compensate the owners should they wreck it. The other issue is that the original Chrystie St connection plan called for the platforms to be narrower than modern accessibility requirements mandate, so they'd essentially wreck the only park in a poor neighborhood and be building right up to the building wall. In the best case scenario this is hugely disruptive; in the worst case scenario they accidentally condemn half a neighborhood.

It's also not like the shallow option is easier to build; unlike Lex-63, there is no false wall and trackway in place.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a side note, I really hope they expand the Grand St station entrances, because the current ones are already full. It would be nice if there were an underground connection directly to the Bowery or to Canal St across from the Manhattan Bridge, and even nicer if the SAS platforms were shifted ever so silghtly north to connect to Bowery (J)(M)(Z). That station really needs some TLC.

Edited November 18, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[Porter]

57 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The buildings are quite old, and the MTA certainly doesn't have the money to compensate the owners should they wreck it. The other issue is that the original Chrystie St connection plan called for the platforms to be narrower than modern accessibility requirements mandate, so they'd essentially wreck the only park in a poor neighborhood and be building right up to the building wall. In the best case scenario this is hugely disruptive; in the worst case scenario they accidentally condemn half a neighborhood.

It's also not like the shallow option is easier to build; unlike Lex-63, there is no false wall and trackway in place.

A poor neighborhood? In that part of Manhattan? Not wealthy, but hardly poor...

All those buildings can be propped up, something renovators do all the time, and the park could be easily rebuilt and improved. There's space for wider platforms too, since it's not an island platform. It makes more sense to use what's there rather than burrow under it which takes for bloody ever, as we've seen.

The Lex-63 station didn't even involve much "building" in the traditional sense. The core structure had already long since been built; they mostly needed to open it up and beautify the interior. They could have just finished the escalator banks that were already half-built, but chose to go with elevators instead, so that's on them.

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, Skipper said:

A poor neighborhood? In that part of Manhattan? Not wealthy, but hardly poor...

All those buildings can be propped up, something renovators do all the time, and the park could be easily rebuilt and improved. There's space for wider platforms too, since it's not an island platform. It makes more sense to use what's there rather than burrow under it which takes for bloody ever, as we've seen.

The Lex-63 station didn't even involve much "building" in the traditional sense. The core structure had already long since been built; they mostly needed to open it up and beautify the interior. They could have just finished the escalator banks that were already half-built, but chose to go with elevators instead, so that's on them.

They chose to go with elevators there to fulfill ADA requirements that were NOT in place when the original escalator requirements were in place.

[CenSin]

11 hours ago, Lance said:

3 Avenue. The station footprint stretches from Third Ave to Second Ave, whereas the footprint of the 1 Avenue station is between First Ave and Avenue A. In regards to the connection with the , I think that was always included since the line would literally run below the 2 Avenue line station.

The problem with a shallow Chrystie option is that it's more disruptive to the neighborhood than the deep option. Of course, when the deep option takes forever, like it did with the first segment of the Second Ave line, the benefits negate themselves.

 

Pick one:

• We will take away half your park and do construction work on adjecent buildings for 5 years for the shallow option;
• or we will have construction adjacent to the park (making it half inaccessible anyway) for 10 years to build the deep option.

[Wallyhorse]

4 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Pick one:

• We will take away half your park and do construction work on adjecent buildings for 5 years for the shallow option;
• or we will have construction adjacent to the park (making it half inaccessible anyway) for 10 years to build the deep option.

I'll take option A, especially if that also involves doing some renovation work on the buildings that is needed anyway.  

[LGA Link N Train]

Option A, I think that the deep option limits what could potentially be an important connection in the system