Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Second Avenue Subway Discussion


CenSin
 Share

Recommended Posts

 More stupidity!

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ave-subway-crews-carve-tunnel-wall-fit-trains-article-1.2840345

Shortly before the first test trains ran, the system's track geometry car determined that the twin bores of the 63rd Street Connector was too narrow for consists of 75-foot (23 m) cars (i.e. trains made of R46s, R68s, or R68As) to enter the line. To accommodate trains of these longer cars, crews shaved down parts of the tunnel walls by mid-October 2016, in time for the test trains.

It all depends on exactly how narrow the tunnel was from the start. It doesn't sound like it was more than a couple of inches off. Of course, the old adage of "measure twice, cut once" applies here.

 

Thats not stupidity. This is exactly what testing is for. Had it not been for the need for maximum service flexibility, this would not be a thing.

 

Remember, the existing system wasn't built for 75 foot cars either. Tests had to be done. Plenty of modifications had to be done at curves. Same thing here. I don't see anything wrong here.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

You're right in regards to testing aspect. However, it's not a matter of maximum flexibility, but the very likely scenario that at the very least, a 68 could wind up on the extension. The (Q) does use 68s from time to time, so it wouldn't be some rare occurrence to have one run up to 96 Street.

 

It is stupidity because they did not realize this earlier. This is not like when the entire system was being modified with XC-575 for 75 footers. This is a new line. They knew that 75-foot long cars could go through the tunnels, and therefore this is stupidity. I sure am glad that they realized it now instead of during revenue service.

See my previous response above.

 

Yes and even Montague still has it's ups and downs. Eastern Divison equipment (except for the 143's and 160's) are still banned from there due to clearance issue's which is why we don't have the (J) running to Prospect Park anymore.

That's not why the (J) stopped running to Prospect Park. Nobody used that shuttle except for railfans. Everyone else used the other nearby lines for alternate service.

 

And by the time the entire line is done, this sort of thing won't even be needed anymore because 75foot cars will no longer exist in this system.

 

The primary service to use the tunnel operates 60ft cars. They could restrict N services that use the tunnel to 60 footers as well. This is obviously for service flexibility more than anything else. While slim, the odds of D, B, and R services using the tunnel in emergencies are possible.

 

No need for all of that. It's not stupidity as I said before.

 

Lastly, on the topic of modifying the existing system for 75 footers. Of course the entire system wasn't modified. The A division could never run cars that long. While the Dual Systems portions of the IRT network could accommodate a maximum of 67 foot cars, the portions built as the original subway were too tight and could not be modified, preventing the purchase of 65 foot cars for the A Div. So tunnels would not have to have been shaved back at curves regardless.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

See my comment above in regards to flexibility and inevitability. Also, never say never. While out of the question now, there's always the possibility of 75-footer cars returning to the subway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Just to say, the last time something like this happened (at new SF), it was only off by a couple of mm, which is probably the tolerance we're talking about here. It's not as if there's an extra foot of tunnel wall they're taking a pickaxe to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say, the last time something like this happened (at new SF), it was only off by a couple of mm, which is probably the tolerance we're talking about here. It's not as if there's an extra foot of tunnel wall they're taking a pickaxe to.

I knew it happened somewhere else recently. I couldn't remember where exactly, so thanks for the reminder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In re the 75ft-snafu: 

 

I have a feeling that it wasn't like, 75 foot cars were scraping the tunnel walls. The "Plate" of a train is the lateral and vertical area where the car MAY occupy assuming all of it's possible rock and sway. 

 

I have a feeling when they ran the TGC they came up with an area that was too-close to the plate. Like, overriding a minimum safe area but I don't think they were like rubbing concrete. They've been running R68's up there already so it seems like it was a quick fix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends on exactly how narrow the tunnel was from the start. It doesn't sound like it was more than a couple of inches off. Of course, the old adage of "measure twice, cut once" applies here.

 

You're right in regards to testing aspect. However, it's not a matter of maximum flexibility, but the very likely scenario that at the very least, a 68 could wind up on the extension. The (Q) does use 68s from time to time, so it wouldn't be some rare occurrence to have one run up to 96 Street.

 

See my previous response above.

 

That's not why the (J) stopped running to Prospect Park. Nobody used that shuttle except for railfans. Everyone else used the other nearby lines for alternate service.

 

See my comment above in regards to flexibility and inevitability. Also, never say never. While out of the question now, there's always the possibility of 75-footer cars returning to the subway.

The 75 foot NYC Subway car was envisioned from financial necessity in a time where the US Government itself was willing to let this city die financially. Not because they were needed. Thats not the case anymore.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

What do you all think of the proposal to extend the northern terminus of the (Q) westward along 125th Street to serve more of Harlem? The 125th Street corridor would serve (2)(3)(A)(B)(C)(D) and perhaps the (1).

 

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/

I'd rather the Bronx receive a second new subway line. You can't relieve crowding on the LEX if you're not going to properly serve the borough causing a lot of the congestion.

 

Sent from my N9132 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather the Bronx receive a second new subway line. You can't relieve crowding on the LEX if you're not going to properly serve the borough causing a lot of the congestion.

 

They're not mutually exclusive. The (Q) would terminate at Broadway (how fitting), while the (T) would continue north in a straight line from 116, skipping 125, straight into the Bronx. I recall reading that north-facing bellmouths would be appended after 116 before the main line dives deep to pass under the Lexington line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not mutually exclusive. The (Q) would terminate at Broadway (how fitting), while the (T) would continue north in a straight line from 116, skipping 125, straight into the Bronx. I recall reading that north-facing bellmouths would be appended after 116 before the main line dives deep to pass under the Lexington line.

It makes more sense to send the (T) across 125th Street and the (Q) to the Bronx, considering their routes below 63rd Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're not mutually exclusive. The (Q) would terminate at Broadway (how fitting), while the (T) would continue north in a straight line from 116, skipping 125, straight into the Bronx. I recall reading that north-facing bellmouths would be appended after 116 before the main line dives deep to pass under the Lexington line.

 

I still think the line should go to 3rd Avenue-149 Street before it goes across 125 Street...

It makes more sense to send the (T) across 125th Street and the (Q) to the Bronx, considering their routes below 63rd Street.

This too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes more sense to send the (T) across 125th Street and the (Q) to the Bronx, considering their routes below 63rd Street.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to that, but wouldn't that make the (T) the only intra-Manhattan line in the system (not including the (S))?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In re the 75ft-snafu: 

 

I have a feeling that it wasn't like, 75 foot cars were scraping the tunnel walls. The "Plate" of a train is the lateral and vertical area where the car MAY occupy assuming all of it's possible rock and sway. 

 

I have a feeling when they ran the TGC they came up with an area that was too-close to the plate. Like, overriding a minimum safe area but I don't think they were like rubbing concrete. They've been running R68's up there already so it seems like it was a quick fix. 

 

 

I expect you're absolutely correct. It sound likely that that was the case. 

 

Someone still screwed up somewhere, either in engineering or construction. I don't understand how anyone can argue that. Unless the MTA never specified that 75-footers should be able to fit, which would be stupid of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I expect you're absolutely correct. It sound likely that that was the case. 

 

Someone still screwed up somewhere, either in engineering or construction. I don't understand how anyone can argue that. Unless the MTA never specified that 75-footers should be able to fit, which would be stupid of them. 

 

There is at least an FTA filing that shows that 75' cars will be able to use the line from the early 2000's. 

 

It occurs to me though, that this mistake *could* be a very old one. When they originally started working on lex/63rd I don't think the R44's had been conceived of yet. There's only one curve on the line that could even cause a clearance issue, and it's right by the very original bellmouth dug when they built the 63 st line. 

 

I can't find any documentation showing what or where the problem was, but it could have just been an issue with the clearance in the original tunnel going from 63 to 2nd. I think the bellmouths were like, 20-30 feet long so - long enough to be part of the problem. Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question how exactly is this going to relive congestion on Lex if riders are coming from THE BRONX. Basically, people coming from Brooklyn are going to be able to use Second Avenue easily, but what about people from the Bronx? Are they going to ride down to 59th St just to take the (Q) back up to 96th St?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question how exactly is this going to relive congestion on Lex if riders are coming from THE BRONX. Basically, people coming from Brooklyn are going to be able to use Second Avenue easily, but what about people from the Bronx? Are they going to ride down to 59th St just to take the (Q) back up to 96th St?

 

 

People who live near the new stations will be able to use the new line to get to work downtown, instead of using the Lex. That should ease congestion for everyone using the Lex, at least below 96th. In other words, a rider from the Bronx going to work in the morning (for example) should enjoy fewer people boarding at 96th and below. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it would. So?

 

Well, as a Manhattanite, I certainly wouldn't mind at all. The residents of other boroughs, however, may complain that too many MTA dollars are being spent on projects for Manhattan's benefit. Aside from that, a crosstown corridor in Harlem would be undoubtedly beneficial for many people, without adding too much weight to the line's ridership either (as a Bronx connection might).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as a Manhattanite, I certainly wouldn't mind at all. The residents of other boroughs, however, may complain that too many MTA dollars are being spent on projects for Manhattan's benefit. Aside from that, a crosstown corridor in Harlem would be undoubtedly beneficial for many people, without adding too much weight to the line's ridership either (as a Bronx connection might).

The (Q) and (T) share the same tracks between 116 and 72 Streets. No matter which line serves 125 Street, and which serves the Bronx, both branches get the same amount of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as a Manhattanite, I certainly wouldn't mind at all. The residents of other boroughs, however, may complain that too many MTA dollars are being spent on projects for Manhattan's benefit. Aside from that, a crosstown corridor in Harlem would be undoubtedly beneficial for many people, without adding too much weight to the line's ridership either (as a Bronx connection might).

 

 

The (Q) and (T) share the same tracks between 116 and 72 Streets. No matter which line serves 125 Street, and which serves the Bronx, both branches get the same amount of service.

 

The anti-Manhattan angle isn't necessarily that Manhattan gets its own subway line, it's that only one line can go north instead of the two potential ones, cutting cross-river capacity in half. The Bronx does need capacity relief on its subway lines as well.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anti-Manhattan angle isn't necessarily that Manhattan gets its own subway line, it's that only one line can go north instead of the two potential ones, cutting cross-river capacity in half. The Bronx does need capacity relief on its subway lines as well.

Funny how this has to be repeated since this entire thread was birthed from this one idea. The only remedy for this—if they built 125 Street as planned—is to shut down the station when the time comes to build two branches in the Bronx. Once the line reaches the first two transfer stations in the Bronx, it will be siphoning ridership from the (2), (5), and (6). The loss of a transfer from the (4) and Metro-North is not such a big deal. In fact, if we postulate that many (4) riders originate near the transit-starved 3 Avenue corridor, a Bronx extension would eliminate the need for a stub at 125 Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how this has to be repeated since this entire thread was birthed from this one idea. The only remedy for this—if they built 125 Street as planned—is to shut down the station when the time comes to build two branches in the Bronx. Once the line reaches the first two transfer stations in the Bronx, it will be siphoning ridership from the (2), (5), and (6). The loss of a transfer from the (4) and Metro-North is not such a big deal. In fact, if we postulate that many (4) riders originate near the transit-starved 3 Avenue corridor, a Bronx extension would eliminate the need for a stub at 125 Street.

Would ridership from the Bronx really be so high that the (T) cannot be split into two branches?

Edited by P3F
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who live near the new stations will be able to use the new line to get to work downtown, instead of using the Lex. That should ease congestion for everyone using the Lex, at least below 96th. In other words, a rider from the Bronx going to work in the morning (for example) should enjoy fewer people boarding at 96th and below. 

I feel like this means:

 

(B)  (D) -> trains would be more empty.

(4) -> More crowded trains in Bronx and Upper Manhattan.

 

(Because most people only use the (B) & (D) to avoid the (4).)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would ridership from the Bronx really be so high that the (T) cannot be split into two branches?

 

Ridership from the Pelham Line transferring to the express is actually one of the biggest dwell time constraints on the Lex. Most of that line would gladly jump ship to another East Side line if it meant less backtracking towards the west.

 

There are two major corridors; Third Av (or Webster Av, or Park), and the eastern Bronx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would ridership from the Bronx really be so high that the (T) cannot be split into two branches?

We don’t know yet. But the ridership won’t be light for sure. A 3 Avenue Line would be shaving off a significant portion of the ridership along Jerome Avenue and White Plains Road given that it sits right in between.

 

Anyhow, if there is a good reason to extend the line to 125 Street and then across to Broadway, it’s the fact that the (1), (3), (A), and (C) do not go down the east side and there is no single transfer to get to such a train. Right now, their options include:

  • (S) or (7) at Times Square–42 Street (to/from Grand Central–42 Street)
  • (E) at 42 Street–Port Authority Bus Terminal or 7 Avenue (to/from Lexington Avenue/53 Street)
  • (F) or (M) at 47–70 Streets–Rockefeller Center (to/from Lexington Avenue/53 Street or Lexington Avenue/63 Street)
  • (N), (Q), (R), or (W) at Times Square–42 Street (to/from Lexington Avenue/59 Street or Lexington Avenue/63 Street)

Things look better from 14 Street going south, but a (T) across 125 Street would be a better single-transfer option down the far east side for everywhere above that.

 

I feel like this means:

 

(B)  (D) -> trains would be more empty.

(4) -> More crowded trains in Bronx and Upper Manhattan.

 

(Because most people only use the (B) & (D) to avoid the (4).)

It probably wouldn’t do much to the (B) or (D) since they serve the west side and middle of Manhattan—a different crowd. The ridership that will abandon the (4) and (5) are those who currently bus it to one of two routes due to the 3 Avenue vacancy.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.