Straphangers: Q line the best (surprise!), the C is the worst (again)

[Via Garibaldi 8]

According to on-time performance data, the is actually quite good. The isn't very good, but isn't the worst in the system.I don't really see how that's possible. I'm not very familiar with dispatchers, so I don't know if they should be doing a better job or something. I do know, though, that longer routes (the is the longest in the system) have worse on-time performance. If you have suggestions for how to improve the (or the on-time performance of any line), it would make an interesting discussion.

 

 

Well I don't see what's so rocket science about it. If they're being delayed by having to share tracks with other trains and the problem is a recurring one (which IMO is quite common), then adjust the friggin schedule accordingly. That's not too hard. And yes the is better than the in terms of coming as scheduled, but since it has 10 minute frequencies and the comes when it wants it seems as if both lines run poorly (at least for someone who isn't aware of the scheduling).

[TheSubwayStation]

Well I don't see what's so rocket science about it. If they're being delayed by having to share tracks with other trains and the problem is a recurring one (which IMO is quite common), then adjust the friggin schedule accordingly. That's not too hard.

 

Question: isn't it quite a challenge to adjust the schedule so that trains won't meet at one spot without making them meet at another spot, and while maintaining relatively even headways?

 

From your experience, are trains scheduled to arrive at a junction at the same time, or do they arrive at the same time because of one line being delayed slightly (for some other reason)? I'm just asking, because I don't pay attention to the schedules as much as you do...

 

EDIT: maybe a T/O or C/R could explain from experience whether the schedules are written badly (and whether they could be easily fixed).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Question: isn't it quite a challenge to adjust the schedule so that trains won't meet at one spot without making them meet at another spot, and while maintaining relatively even headways?

 

From your experience, are trains scheduled to arrive at a junction at the same time, or do they arrive at the same time because of one line being delayed slightly (for some other reason)? I'm just asking, because I don't pay attention to the schedules as much as you do...

 

EDIT: maybe a T/O or C/R could explain from experience whether the schedules are written badly (and whether they could be easily fixed).

 

 

Well I find it annoying quite frankly particularly with the and coming down from Uptown down to 59th street. That whole waiting for one train to go in front of the other takes way too long and I would have to think that somehow they could improve that. That's probably where some trains become late. All of the track work and signal upgrades they do should've dealt with situations like this, so what's the deal with that? The other thing is if you get on say the at 59th and the is going first, it would be nice to know that. I mean no one wants to sit in the station if they're getting off in a few stops where both trains stop at.

[TheSubwayStation]

Well I find it annoying quite frankly particularly with the and coming down from Uptown down to 59th street. That whole waiting for one train to go in front of the other takes way too long and I would have to think that somehow they could improve that. That's probably where some trains become late. All of the track work and signal upgrades they do should've dealt with situations like this, so what's the deal with that?

1. My point is that there are many bottlenecks in the system that the schedules have to work around, which seems like a pretty difficult task. For example:

 

Basically the , , , and trains all have to be scheduled around each other...The and can't meet on CPW. The and can't meet on CPW. The and can't meet on 6 Av/53 St. The and can't meet at Canal St. Now, add on the fact that the has to merge with the in Brooklyn, and the has to merge with the in Brooklyn. And the has to merge with the on 8 Av. And, the , , and trains certainly have to merge with other trains, too. This doesn't sound easy to me.

 

 

2. How would track work and signal upgrades fix this? I'm curious.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1. My point is that there are many bottlenecks in the system that the schedules have to work around, which seems like a pretty difficult task. For example:

 

Basically the , , , and trains all have to be scheduled around each other...The and can't meet on CPW. The and can't meet on CPW. The and can't meet on 6 Av/53 St. The and can't meet at Canal St. Now, add on the fact that the has to merge with the in Brooklyn, and the has to merge with the in Brooklyn. And the has to merge with the on 8 Av. And, the , , and trains certainly have to merge with other trains, too. This doesn't sound easy to me.

 

 

2. How would track work and signal upgrades fix this? I'm curious.

 

 

Well don't signal upgrades allow trains to be spaced closer together??

[TheSubwayStation]

Well don't signal upgrades allow trains to be spaced closer together??

 

Potentially. I'm not familiar with what upgrades have been made in these areas in question, though...Frequent G.O.s don't necessarily mean that they're adjusting the spacing of signals, which isn't always possible. Signals can't be too close, of course. Remember that delays aren't necessarily a product of inadequate signalling, as signals still need to be far enough apart to prevent collisions. Maybe someone with further knowledge about updates to the signal system can explain more.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Potentially. I'm not familiar with what upgrades have been made in these areas in question, though...Frequent G.O.s don't necessarily mean that they're adjusting the spacing of signals, which isn't always possible. Signals can't be too close, of course. Remember that delays aren't necessarily a product of inadequate signalling, as signals still need to be far enough apart to prevent collisions. Maybe someone with further knowledge about updates to the signal system can explain more.

 

 

My understanding was that at least with some lines like the for example, they upgraded the signals, which allowed more trains to be put into service since trains could then be spaced closer...

[TheSubwayStation]

My understanding was that at least with some lines like the for example, they upgraded the signals, which allowed more trains to be put into service since trains could then be spaced closer...

 

Interesting. I'd like to know more about this; specifically what was inadequate about the old signals that got replaced. Maybe someone with more knowledge about this can explain...

 

You may be thinking of station timers, though, which allow trains to get closer to each other as long as they maintain a slow speed. Station timers exist throughout the system, but the MTA said that they were "enhancing" them on the Lexington Av Line.