Planned Subway Service Changes

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Lance said:

Then the question is, are these trains arriving to their terminals on something resembling on-time? Given what we're seeing, I doubt it.

So I went back and looked into this. You're right, there was a southbound gap that ricocheted north. Here's the fun part though: that gap was itself a ricochet of a half hour gap that arrived at Norwood between 6:45 and 7:15 AM. I've attached annotated strings that show how this progressed. It's embarrassing that we're inattentive enough to service in this city that we let this happen -- there should have been gap trains somewhere in here to fix this. 

[R68OnBroadway]

12 minutes ago, RR503 said:

So I went back and looked into this. You're right, there was a southbound gap that ricocheted north. Here's the fun part though: that gap was itself a ricochet of a half hour gap that arrived at Norwood between 6:45 and 7:15 AM. I've attached annotated strings that show how this progressed. It's embarrassing that we're inattentive enough to service in this city that we let this happen -- there should have been gap trains somewhere in here to fix this. 

20 mins to head up CPW?!?!

This is why the  are infinitely better than the CPW lines will ever be, even considering the 125-59 nonstop.

By the way, I know most of the  crawling between 59th/125th is a result of flaggers and timers, but how much does equipment play a role? The 46s always crawl (minus the 60th tubes on the  and the 68s always seem to slack (minus Brighton). 

[RR503]

12 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

20 mins to head up CPW?!?!

This is why the  are infinitely better than the CPW lines will ever be, even considering the 125-59 nonstop.

By the way, I know most of the  crawling between 59th/125th is a result of flaggers and timers, but how much does equipment play a role? The 46s always crawl (minus the 60th tubes on the  and the 68s always seem to slack (minus Brighton). 

With a good TO in the off peak, I've done 42-168 in less than 15 on the , but the whole thing dies during the rush thanks to merges, overcautious operation, long dwells and the overwhelming reluctance to use ST. A shame. 

Equipment certainly doesn't help. The 46s and (especially) the 68s underperform relative to 160s or 179s, but I think it's important to note that a lot of it just comes down to who is operating the train. While the opposite is certainly the rule, I've flown in 68s and crawled in the 179 before. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

So I went back and looked into this. You're right, there was a southbound gap that ricocheted north. Here's the fun part though: that gap was itself a ricochet of a half hour gap that arrived at Norwood between 6:45 and 7:15 AM. I've attached annotated strings that show how this progressed. It's embarrassing that we're inattentive enough to service in this city that we let this happen -- there should have been gap trains somewhere in here to fix this. 

Side note: This morning I took a northbound  between 7:15 and 7:30 AM and there did seem to be a 17 minutes gap between trains when in reality, the train that departed was not trackable (have no idea why).

[Jsunflyguy]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Because then it becomes a pain. Now, almost everyone wants to board the to where it gets crushloaded and then try to squish on the shuttle bus. It's no fun.

Exactly, if you have service where people are accustomed they will do what they're accustomed to, board the  train and transfer to and crushload the  at 168 and 207. The name of the game is actually to disperse ridership.

This is the same reason when the Brighton line is closed service will end at Park Pl to avoid a trainload of people jumping off the and trying to cram onto the ...which would be physically impossible. 
 

4 hours ago, Far rockaway said:

What's wrong with this G.O. is it because  trains are ending at 96th st and it is inconvenient for people who live along that line that have to deal with no trains from the Bronx all the way to the upper west side of Manhattan. They can't just run the  in two sections or could they. You think they are going to be doing track maintenance along the whole section of the line north of 96th st, but if not, then it will be unnecessary for them to close the line all the way to 242nd st.

This is usually caused by multiple programs. For example last time the 242nd section was shut down it was work on the Harlem Bridge and track repair midline and preparing for other work later. So these big cut outs do have a lot of items on the ticket since any one of them would realistically trigger a large closure.

[RR503]

8 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

 This is the same reason when the Brighton line is closed service will end at Park Pl to avoid a trainload of people jumping off the and trying to cram onto the ...which would be physically impossible. 

They've killed this particular policy. This year's Brighton closures have all been with trains stopping at PP, though riders were heavily encouraged to take buses. 

 

[Lex]

8 hours ago, Lance said:

The problem is that they don't want to nerf the unless absolutely necessary, especially when the Yankees are in town, which they are for the weekend of June 1st. Even during the many weekends where service was reduced for Jerome Ave work, the reduction was only in place north of 125 Street or Burnside Av, the area impacted by the slowdowns. As the is the primary Lexington Ave line, it gets priority over the unfortunately, which is why the latter is always either truncated to E 180 Street or has its service levels reduced.

Ah, yes, the sacred cow...

By that logic, the  should be getting the cuts instead of the  (on the same weekends, no less!), especially since it's much easier to replace than the .

If they're really so concerned about whatever's north of 149th Street, have extra  trips short-turn there and call it a day. It serves to improve the balance, anyway. (As for those weekends where they insist on short-turning half of the trains, just bite the bullet and have trains run at 12-minute intervals. It's not great, but it's more predictable, avoids potential conflicts between trains that are short-turning and trains that aren't, and guarantees that those north of Burnside Avenue can get a train at all. Of course, the would serve Brooklyn in order to avoid the problems that would otherwise stem from the reduction in Brooklyn service.)

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

With a good TO in the off peak, I've done 42-168 in less than 15 on the , but the whole thing dies during the rush thanks to merges, overcautious operation, long dwells and the overwhelming reluctance to use ST. A shame. 

Equipment certainly doesn't help. The 46s and (especially) the 68s underperform relative to 160s or 179s, but I think it's important to note that a lot of it just comes down to who is operating the train. While the opposite is certainly the rule, I've flown in 68s and crawled in the 179 before. 

I can't fathom 42nd to 168th in 15 minutes!

[darkstar8983]

12 hours ago, Lex said:

Ah, yes, the sacred cow...

By that logic, the  should be getting the cuts instead of the  (on the same weekends, no less!), especially since it's much easier to replace than the .

If they're really so concerned about whatever's north of 149th Street, have extra  trips short-turn there and call it a day. It serves to improve the balance, anyway. (As for those weekends where they insist on short-turning half of the trains, just bite the bullet and have trains run at 12-minute intervals. It's not great, but it's more predictable, avoids potential conflicts between trains that are short-turning and trains that aren't, and guarantees that those north of Burnside Avenue can get a train at all. Of course, the would serve Brooklyn in order to avoid the problems that would otherwise stem from the reduction in Brooklyn service.)

The  and  should maintain the 8-minute headway’s, with the  extended to New Lots Av on weekends (local in Brooklyn). Maybe even short turn the  at South Ferry and run the  every 20 minutes on weekends. This way, yes we are providing only 2 routes in Brooklyn but they’re consistent.

Edited May 22, 2019 by darkstar8983

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The  and  should maintain the 8-minute headway’s, with the  extended to New Lots Av on weekends (local in Brooklyn). Maybe even short turn the  at South Ferry and run the  every 20 minutes on weekends. This way, yes we are providing only 2 routes in Brooklyn but they’re consistent.

You should have the  run every 16 minutes so that there aren't delays at merges and issues with scheduling.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The  and  should maintain the 8-minute headway’s, with the  extended to New Lots Av on weekends (local in Brooklyn). Maybe even short turn the  at South Ferry and run the  every 20 minutes on weekends. This way, yes we are providing only 2 routes in Brooklyn but they’re consistent.

At that point, why bother?

[S78 via Hylan]

Folks, this isn’t the proposals thread.

[Lance]

To respond to a couple of things, the use of gap trains is a good idea in theory. The problem remains in their execution though. For them to be cost-effective, it must be assumed they will constantly or at least consistently be needed. It requires at least one train crew to be on standby should the situation warrant a gap train to be put into service. That's fine if the issue is on one line or service in particular. If gap trains are required all over the place randomly however, it's probably better to look at what's causing the delays in the first place rather than spend money on additional train crews that may not be required at the time. The other problem with gap trains is their placement. They would obviously have to be in a good location to be put into service in a pinch. At times, however, especially on weekends when maintenance and/or construction work is most prevalent, those key locations may be unavailable due to service changes taking a track out of service.

On the subject of decreased service, specifically that of the  as opposed to other lines, it's not so much that the line is untouchable, but rather the nature of the line itself. The is the only east side express line that goes to Brooklyn. The doesn't share that luxury and therefore is considered a supplemental line that's expendable should the situation require it unfortunately. Broadway doesn't count in this case as none of those lines go to Harlem or the Bronx. The problem isn't that the needs to be reduced to fit in extended  train service; it's that the  is being over-reduced unnecessarily. If every other line can operate at 12 minute intervals when a track is taken out of service, why is the being singled out by being forced to run at 20 minute intervals whenever it has to share a track with the and ? Surely, the can run at something resembling its normal service levels without hampering other services that much.

[bwwnyc123]

Because on weekends service is not really needed as much. are the primary lines which are always needed. is good for weekday service.

[Lawrence St]

I dont think the has run normal on weekends since New Years, the weekend scheduel is barely, if not at all used.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Lance said:

To respond to a couple of things, the use of gap trains is a good idea in theory. The problem remains in their execution though. For them to be cost-effective, it must be assumed they will constantly or at least consistently be needed. It requires at least one train crew to be on standby should the situation warrant a gap train to be put into service. That's fine if the issue is on one line or service in particular. If gap trains are required all over the place randomly however, it's probably better to look at what's causing the delays in the first place rather than spend money on additional train crews that may not be required at the time. The other problem with gap trains is their placement. They would obviously have to be in a good location to be put into service in a pinch. At times, however, especially on weekends when maintenance and/or construction work is most prevalent, those key locations may be unavailable due to service changes taking a track out of service.

It’s relatively rare for spur tracks to be affected by GOs; limits may include them, but that’s generally because limits are written in anticipation of the consequent service change rather than of work. Most spurs also are placed in interlockings that allow their occupants expedient access to all tracks, so an outage on an adjacent track would have to affect the actual crossing point to have an effect on access. 

I agree that gap trains are a palliative solution and need to be used wisely, but I challenge this notion that efforts on the causative end can eliminate their necessity — there’s a degree to which gaps are unavoidable. It’s a misconception that gap trains are only useful in these big, incompetence generated service SNAFUs; you can just as easily use a gap train when you have to remove an interval from service because someone vomited, or when you have trains arriving late at terminals, or simply when you have a slow operator at rush hour and can’t afford the crowding impact of a resultant gap. Those sorts of service jitters are extremely common; having a quick and dirty fix for such inevitabilities of transit that interacts with humans would actually do a lot for service. For whatever it’s worth, gap trains also are operationally superior to our current system of mitigating disruption in that they add capacity instead of relying on short turns or holds or skips to ‘fill’ gaps — so you can make more of a dent on disruption crowds with less of an impact on other riders.

Really this all comes down to the price we put on rider experience. Having gap trains on, say, A5 at 30th/8th, VM at 34/7, D5 at Queens Plaza, L1A at 59/Lex, EM at Nevins, somewhere on CPW and somewhere on Jamaica would cost very little in the context of the MTA budget, but would allow for rapid, impactful response to disruption in important parts of the system. Worth it? 

[Cabanamaner]

On 5/21/2019 at 8:36 PM, Union Tpke said:

I can't fathom 42nd to 168th in 15 minutes!

It’s true. Last year, I caught one of those R68 “Special” trains for Yankees games at 145th Street. That thing FLEW down CPW faster than any train I’ve ever been on, and the run between 59th and 42nd took less than a minute. It was a glimpse of the true potential the CPW express run has without being hampered by timers. 

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Lance said:

If every other line can operate at 12 minute intervals when a track is taken out of service, why is the being singled out by being forced to run at 20 minute intervals whenever it has to share a track with the and ? Surely, the can run at something resembling its normal service levels without hampering other services that much.

The reason that the (5) gets reduced so much is because the (4) and (6) generally are not cut. (4) and (6) are 15tph alone; 18tph once you add in the (5) is really pushing it if there's flagging. 

[Caelestor]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

The reason that the gets reduced so much is because the and generally are not cut. and are 15tph alone; 18tph once you add in the is really pushing it if there's flagging. 

At this point, it might be worthwhile cutting back the  to a shuttle on weekends and running the  and  at 6 minute headways. I'd consider the same thing with 7 Ave, but the doesn't have a suitable terminal.

[GreatOne2k]

The alternative is to cut the to 12 minute headways and run the  local to keep the  running normally during GOs. They did this when the Clark Street Tunnels were closed. One weekend the was cut back to a Pelham shuttle at 125th and the  and  went local to Brooklyn.

[Daniel The Cool]

6 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

One weekend the was cut back to a Pelham shuttle at 125th and the  and  went local to Brooklyn.

Except that had to do with one of tubes to/from the Bronx being closed off as well as work being done in the City Hall loop.

[Lex]

45 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

At this point, it might be worthwhile cutting back the  to a shuttle on weekends and running the  and  at 6 minute headways. I'd consider the same thing with 7 Ave, but the doesn't have a suitable terminal.

People along the route (in the Bronx) have more than enough difficulty getting decent subway service. The last thing we should be doing is giving them a giant 🖕. (This is especially the case when the  also sees its headways cut.)

[Lawrence St]

8 hours ago, GreatOne2k said:

The alternative is to cut the to 12 minute headways and run the  local to keep the  running normally during GOs. They did this when the Clark Street Tunnels were closed. One weekend the was cut back to a Pelham shuttle at 125th and the  and  went local to Brooklyn.

Excuse me? Absolutely not! 

Even though it is unfortunate, the is basically a supplemental service. While it does serve it's own line (East 180th St-Dyre) it has connections to the at East 180th St where riders can transfer to the at 149th St. Running the local and the reduced just to have the run will have riders fuming.

The only way, as I can see, to fix this is to run the every 20 minutes between East 180th St and Bowling Green while having regular service on the Dyre Branch so no ones commute is impacted as bad as when the whole is running 20 minutes.

[Lance]

12 hours ago, Caelestor said:

At this point, it might be worthwhile cutting back the  to a shuttle on weekends and running the  and  at 6 minute headways. I'd consider the same thing with 7 Ave, but the doesn't have a suitable terminal.

11 hours ago, GreatOne2k said:

The alternative is to cut the to 12 minute headways and run the  local to keep the  running normally during GOs. They did this when the Clark Street Tunnels were closed. One weekend the was cut back to a Pelham shuttle at 125th and the  and  went local to Brooklyn.

We really have to get out of this belief that we must spread the pain around to everyone. Cutting back lines or needlessly expanding their intervals between trains is extremely detrimental to getting people to actually use these service outside of peak periods.

[Caelestor]

6 hours ago, Lance said:

We really have to get out of this belief that we must spread the pain around to everyone. Cutting back lines or needlessly expanding their intervals between trains is extremely detrimental to getting people to actually use these service outside of peak periods.

Perhaps the discussion should be about why the MTA can't run more than 20 tph on a 4-track line on weekends. Is there an actual logistical reason or are they just cheap?