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.
TheSubwayStation

Planned Subway Service Changes

Recommended Posts

So the (2) is out again between 135th and East 180th, but now instead of running the shuttle buses to 135th like last time, they are running to/from 148th. I guessing the amount of buses and the awkward drop-off situations just caused too much congestion. Although, it does make sense, especially since having unnecessary congestion around Harlem Hospital (which is right by the stop) should be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

URGENT SIGNAL REPAIRS | Aug 21 - 24, Tue to Fri, from 9:45 PM to 5 AM
Inwood-bound (A) trains run via the (F) from Jay St-MetroTech, Brooklyn to 47-50 Sts and via the (D) to 59 St-Columbus Circle, Manhattan   


No Inwood-bound service at High, Fulton, Chambers, Canal, Spring, 14, 23, 34 St-Penn Station, 42 St/Port Authority and 50 St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

URGENT SIGNAL REPAIRS | Aug 21 - 24, Tue to Fri, from 9:45 PM to 5 AM
Inwood-bound (A) trains run via the (F) from Jay St-MetroTech, Brooklyn to 47-50 Sts and via the (D) to 59 St-Columbus Circle, Manhattan   


No Inwood-bound service at High, Fulton, Chambers, Canal, Spring, 14, 23, 34 St-Penn Station, 42 St/Port Authority and 50 St.

I'm guessing those signal repairs are between 42nd and 59th or so as I don't see the (E) being adjusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I'm guessing those signal repairs are between 42nd and 59th or so as I don't see the (E) being adjusted.

I think its actually somewhere between Jay and Chambers, the switches at W4 have not been used lately in unplanned service changes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

I think its actually somewhere between Jay and Chambers, the switches at W4 have not been used lately in unplanned service changes

Yes. They're clamped to normal until the SSI cutover is finished. Have been since the (E)(R) weekends IIRC. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. They're clamped to normal until the SSI cutover is finished. Have been since the (E)(R) weekends IIRC. 

Oh so that's why they did the (E) to Whitehall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Oh so that's why they did the (E) to Whitehall.

Not exactly. They did that because they needed all trains to be off the local tracks in whatever direction at W4. On 8th, that's easy -- (C)(E) via express. On 6th, the Chrystie-induced lack of a B1/B3 crossover south of W4 disallows simply sending the (F) via 6th Express, so while the (D) could remain normal, the (F) was forced over to 8th -- onto 8th express, which would then carry (A)(C)(E) and (F) trains. In clear water running, those 4 would all fit (8+6+5+5 = 24, which is <30), but the fact that 8th express was being flagged means that there only was 15-16tph to go around. Thus, one line had to be cut. The simplest line to cut -- given that it doesn't serve Brooklyn -- is the (E), so they sent that to Whitehall via 63rd, solving the 4 lines on 8th exp issue while also adding back service at 63rd St stations which were losing the (F) to 53/8th that weekend.

Finally, to compensate for the loss of the (E) on 53rd, (F) trains in the direction unaffected by W4 work were sent that way -- which, I believe, also had to do with the fact that under such a plan, both tracks at 57 would then be open for ESI work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Yes. They're clamped to normal until the SSI cutover is finished. Have been since the (E)(R) weekends IIRC. 

What's SSI cutover?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

What's SSI cutover?

Solid State Interlocking — upgrading dem vacuum tubes to CBTC compatibility. That’s why you see the new signals in that area. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Not exactly. They did that because they needed all trains to be off the local tracks in whatever direction at W4. On 8th, that's easy -- (C)(E) via express. On 6th, the Chrystie-induced lack of a B1/B3 crossover south of W4 disallows simply sending the (F) via 6th Express, so while the (D) could remain normal, the (F) was forced over to 8th -- onto 8th express, which would then carry (A)(C)(E) and (F) trains. In clear water running, those 4 would all fit (8+6+5+5 = 24, which is <30), but the fact that 8th express was being flagged means that there only was 15-16tph to go around. Thus, one line had to be cut. The simplest line to cut -- given that it doesn't serve Brooklyn -- is the (E), so they sent that to Whitehall via 63rd, solving the 4 lines on 8th exp issue while also adding back service at 63rd St stations which were losing the (F) to 53/8th that weekend.

Finally, to compensate for the loss of the (E) on 53rd, (F) trains in the direction unaffected by W4 work were sent that way -- which, I believe, also had to do with the fact that under such a plan, both tracks at 57 would then be open for ESI work. 

I have seen IRT lines during flagging G.Os have a combined 17.5 to 18 tph. I wonder why the B division runs slighty less tph combined during  flagging G.Os.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the (5) is out between 149th St and East 180th St, they really should just have the (5) run between East 180th St & Dyre Av and have the (6) run to Bowling Green and boost (4) service with some alternates ending at 149th St.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really want the (4) to be the sole express on Lexington Ave? That sounds like a recipe for disaster, even with the reduced TPHs on the (5). It matters very little when everything is local, as it will be this weekend. However, you know how riders are with their express trains. They'll let a dozen (6) trains fly by to get on that one (4) express train that arrives.

Also, terminating alternate (4) trains at 149 St-Grand Concourse is the exact same thing as ending the (5) trains there, just with added confusion and no other gains. All (5) trains terminating at 149 Street is much easier to convey to the riding public than some (4) trains terminating there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance said:

Do you really want the (4) to be the sole express on Lexington Ave? That sounds like a recipe for disaster, even with the reduced TPHs on the (5). It matters very little when everything is local, as it will be this weekend. However, you know how riders are with their express trains. They'll let a dozen (6) trains fly by to get on that one (4) express train that arrives.

Also, terminating alternate (4) trains at 149 St-Grand Concourse is the exact same thing as ending the (5) trains there, just with added confusion and no other gains. All (5) trains terminating at 149 Street is much easier to convey to the riding public than some (4) trains terminating there.

It's better then having the (5) run every 20 minutes. And having alternate (4) trains shouldn't be that confusing because at least you maintain the regular TPH on the Express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, the better thing would be to have the (5) run at its normal headways despite being cut back to 149 Street. For some reason or another, that isn't possible because every time there's work on Lexington Ave (this past weekend, it was the northbound express run between Brooklyn Bridge and Grand Central), the (5) gets reduced, which is the real issue at play here. From an operations standpoint, it doesn't matter how the trains are labeled; it's that service reduction that's the problem. Normal (5)s or shortened (4)s - unless that reduction is removed, there will still be uneven loading on the main (4) trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lance said:

Nah, the better thing would be to have the (5) run at its normal headways despite being cut back to 149 Street. For some reason or another, that isn't possible because every time there's work on Lexington Ave (this past weekend, it was the northbound express run between Brooklyn Bridge and Grand Central), the (5) gets reduced, which is the real issue at play here. From an operations standpoint, it doesn't matter how the trains are labeled; it's that service reduction that's the problem. Normal (5)s or shortened (4)s - unless that reduction is removed, there will still be uneven loading on the main (4) trains.

Running the (5) normally would mean the (6) gets cut back to 12 minutes (like before when the (5) had more priority) and the (4) would have to run local to help the (6).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Running the (5) normally would mean the (6) gets cut back to 12 minutes (like before when the (5) had more priority) and the (4) would have to run local to help the (6).

That was during Clark st weekend closures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Running the (5) normally would mean the (6) gets cut back to 12 minutes (like before when the (5) had more priority) and the (4) would have to run local to help the (6).

That was the dumbest decision ever. We Jerome riders have to suffer in favor of the (5) which is downright stupid. If the (4) goes local, so should the (5) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, j express said:

That was during Clark st weekend closures.

Yes, it also shows that MTA has to cut something, though the (6) train at 12 minute headways was still more total Lex service than the (5) train at 20 minute headways.

 

6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

That was the dumbest decision ever. We Jerome riders have to suffer in favor of the (5) which is downright stupid. If the (4) goes local, so should the (5) .

Would you prefer an overcrowded (4) train running express and no (5) train at all?  The (4) was suffering because of the (6), not the (5).

The (4) is suffering more now due to the (5) ending early almost every night, or not running much at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Yes, it also shows that MTA has to cut something, though the (6) train at 12 minute headways was still more total Lex service than the (5) train at 20 minute headways.

 

Would you prefer an overcrowded (4) train running express and no (5) train at all?  The (4) was suffering because of the (6), not the (5).

The (4) is suffering more now due to the (5) ending early almost every night, or not running much at all.

Um, having the (4) be the Lex Av local gets crowds from the express stations and Jerome, plus the local riders along Lexington. That's a bad combo and leads to crowding conditions.

At least when its express it's more bearable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

That was the dumbest decision ever. We Jerome riders have to suffer in favor of the (5) which is downright stupid. If the (4) goes local, so should the (5) .

The (5) should go local so everyone has to suffer? The logic there escapes me. 

I generally think that there should be some effort put towards (where possible) reducing the the number of services through a single tracked/flagged area from 3 to 2. I think people would much rather have more reliable service via transfers than infrequent, unreliable single line options. After all, the current way of doing things has caused massive declines in outer borough (read: branch) ridership. 

Examples:

- when QB is on 1 track, cut the (R) to Queens Plaza, and run the (E)(F)(R) all at 7.5 tph with the (E) local.  

- when 8th is on one track, send either the (C) or the (E) via 6th so the (A)(C)(E) can maintain 6-7.5 tph. 

- when Canarsie has (D)(F)(M) on 6th, the same should apply for the (F) and northbound (D)

Anyway, I think the larger takeaway from this conversation shouldn’t be so much that we need to change GO service patterns but that we need to change GOs. The agency needs to consider creating more predictability into the process — for example, giving all departments 4 weekends of full shutdown on some line to get all their work done. Then, bring on the productivity audit, I say, along with track barriers. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The (5) should go local so everyone has to suffer? The logic there escapes me. 

I generally think that there should be some effort put towards (where possible) reducing the the number of services through a single tracked/flagged area from 3 to 2. I think people would much rather have more reliable service via transfers than infrequent, unreliable single line options. After all, the current way of doing things has caused massive declines in outer borough (read: branch) ridership. 

Examples:

- when QB is on 1 track, cut the (R) to Queens Plaza, and run the (E)(F)(R) all at 7.5 tph with the (E) local.  

- when 8th is on one track, send either the (C) or the (E) via 6th so the (A)(C)(E) can maintain 6-7.5 tph. 

- when Canarsie has (D)(F)(M) on 6th, the same should apply for the (F) and northbound (D)

Anyway, I think the larger takeaway from this conversation shouldn’t be so much that we need to change GO service patterns but that we need to change GOs. The agency needs to consider creating more predictability into the process — for example, giving all departments 4 weekends of full shutdown on some line to get all their work done. Then, bring on the productivity audit, I say, along with track barriers. 

I didnt say that. The (5) should have been the one to go local instead of the (4). Its best to have at least one service retain it's normal it's normal service pattern for simplicity sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I didnt say that. The (5) should have been the one to go local instead of the (4). Its best to have at least one service retain it's normal it's normal service pattern for simplicity sake.

The (4) has to go local overnight anyway, so the (5) makes more sense to be the express since it was express all night at the time.  The (5) also has a longer route in the Bronx than the (4) with more stops. A (5) rider to 241 St has a longer ride than a (4) rider to Woodlawn.

Edited by GreatOne2k
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RR503 said:

Examples:

- when QB is on 1 track, cut the (R) to Queens Plaza, and run the (E)(F)(R) all at 7.5 tph with the (E) local.  

- when 8th is on one track, send either the (C) or the (E) via 6th so the (A)(C)(E) can maintain 6-7.5 tph. 

- when Canarsie has (D)(F)(M) on 6th, the same should apply for the (F) and northbound (D)

But doesn't that just create a different problem? In one case, you're punishing Jamaica riders with only local service. Obviously it doesn't matter when everything's running local there, but the one-directional express runs on top of local-only (E) service in the other direction just adds insult to injury in my opinion. In another case, it punishes riders seeking 8th and 6th Avenue services from Queens respectively. People still want to get around on weekends and I feel that needlessly rerouting services is just as bad as the slow downs resulting from holding and flagging.

I believe I mentioned this previously but it bears repeating: weekend construction work is not a new thing and I highly doubt service was this crippled when running multiple services on one line in the past, even through construction zones. Was it even this bad say 15 years ago with the (E)(F) (R) and sometimes (G) running up Queens Blvd? (Maybe I'm wrong and the old-timers (@Trainmaster5 :lol:) will chime in accordingly.) The agency really needs to look into why things are so slow nowadays and fix the problem. There's no reason why any line should be running at abysmal headways like the 20 minute intervals on the (5) or the collective 12 on Queens Blvd, even when there's work happening on the line.

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

Anyway, I think the larger takeaway from this conversation shouldn’t be so much that we need to change GO service patterns but that we need to change GOs. The agency needs to consider creating more predictability into the process — for example, giving all departments 4 weekends of full shutdown on some line to get all their work done. Then, bring on the productivity audit, I say, along with track barriers. 

This right here. As most here know, I create the unofficial weekend service maps and I've noticed there seems to be no rhyme or reason to any of these planned service changes. Sure, you'll get a couple of consecutive weekends where they're doing the same work (the last four weekends of suspended (J) service east of Crescent St comes to mind), but those are few and far in between. General maintenance doesn't apply as that occurs as needed and it's understandable that those related service changes are seemingly random. However, the "long-term" projects, like Queens Blvd and Flushing CBTC / signal modernization work or even the track replacement projects, should be done with as few stops and starts as possible. Not only would it get the job done quicker, it would also give riders an idea of what to expect well in advance, rather than the current approach of checking the site every week to see what line is out of service. The MTA already stole TFL's website design. Maybe they can "borrow" their long-term service change procedures as well.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lance said:

But doesn't that just create a different problem? In one case, you're punishing Jamaica riders with only local service. Obviously it doesn't matter when everything's running local there, but the one-directional express runs on top of local-only (E) service in the other direction just adds insult to injury in my opinion. In another case, it punishes riders seeking 8th and 6th Avenue services from Queens respectively. People still want to get around on weekends and I feel that needlessly rerouting services is just as bad as the slow downs resulting from holding and flagging.

Disagree. Twelve minute headways on those lines means average waits of 6 minutes. Doing 2 services/track means 4 minute average waits -- which all but makes up for time savings lost by local E service on Queens Boulevard for example.

I think that this is one of those arguments where a greater good needs to be considered. Yes, you may add a minute or two to scheduled travel times to and from Jamaica (I emphasize scheduled because all of this gets thrown out the window anyway), but such a plan gives all other E F and R line riders decent service. I think we can't negate that, especially given the extensive and high ridership portions of F and R lines that are only served by them. 

As for rerouting services, I again think this is a matter of perspective. There will absolutely be some who will see added transfers if, say, the C is sent to 6th -- but they come with the benefit of significant wait reduction on Fulton and CPW. I'm not claiming to know that this will be an objective positive in travel time -- I'm just saying that given our current situation, this sort of change needs to be studied. 

1 hour ago, Lance said:

 I believe I mentioned this previously but it bears repeating: weekend construction work is not a new thing and I highly doubt service was this crippled when running multiple services on one line in the past, even through construction zones. Was it even this bad say 15 years ago with the (E)(F) (R) and sometimes (G) running up Queens Blvd? (Maybe I'm wrong and the old-timers (@Trainmaster5 :lol:) will chime in accordingly.) The agency really needs to look into why things are so slow nowadays and fix the problem. There's no reason why any line should be running at abysmal headways like the 20 minute intervals on the (5) or the collective 12 on Queens Blvd, even when there's work happening on the line.

This here is key. While weekend service changes are not in any way new, the adjacent track flagging that makes them so punishing is. After the deaths of those two track workers in the mid-2000s, the MTA and TWU established a 'Track Safety Task Force' to run an audit of MTA maintenance worker protection. One of the key concerns their report highlighted was the almost universal lack of adjacent track protection, so after its release, there was a concerted internal effort to strengthen NYCT flagging protocols. That, combined with the arguably draconian flagging rules themselves (<10mph for a minimum of a quarter-mile), is in essence why 2007 became the inflection point in weekend service -- with the increased volume of work necessitated by various triage efforts, it's been downhill from there. 

Luckily, a relatively simple solution to ATF exists -- track barriers and full shutdowns. The former provides an easily installable temporary wall to void ATF requirements, while the latter just kills the whole notion of adjacent tracks. Of course, both should be done, but given the agency's deep-set myopia, I'd be delighted to see limited implementation of either. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Track Maintenance

Aug 25-26 Sat and Sun, 5:45AM to 8PM

South Ferry Bound (1) trains run express from 168thst to 96thst

For service to Bypassed stations, transfer at 96thst to a 242ndst bound (1) train

Track Maintenance  

 9:45PM Fri Aug 24 to 5AM Mon Aug 27

 No (A) trains between 181st and 207st 

Free shuttle buses provide alternate service between 181st and 207st

Signal Improvements

10:45PM Fri Aug 24 to 5AM Mon Aug 27

Jamaica 179thst bound (F) trains run via the (A) and (E) lines from Jay-St Metrotech to Roosevelt ave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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