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

TRACK REPLACEMENT
Jun 29, Saturday, 6 AM to midnight
Jun 30, Sunday, 8 AM to 10 PM
(3) Service between Utica Av and New Lots Av in Brooklyn is replaced by free shuttle buses

TRACK MAINTENANCE
Jun 28 - Jul 1, 11:45 PM Fri to 5 AM Mon
(6) Service between Hunts Point Av, the Bronx and 125 St, Manhattan is replaced by free shuttle buses

(6) trains run in two sections:
1. Between Brooklyn Bridge and 125 St and via the (4) to/from 149 St-Grand Concourse.
2. Between Hunts Point Av and Pelham Bay Park, every 12 minutes days and evenings.
  
Shuttle Buses make all stops between Hunts Point Av and 125 St.

• Transfer between shuttle buses and (6) trains at Hunts Point Av and/or 125 St.
 

 Note:  (6) trains from Manhattan skip 138 St-Grand Concourse (4) station.

ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS
Jun 28 - Jul 1, 9:45 PM Fri to 5 AM Mon
(N) Coney Island-bound trains run via the (D) from 36 St to Stillwell Av in Brooklyn


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Jul 13 - 28, 3:45 AM Sat to 10 PM Sun
(N) Service between Ditmars Blvd and Queensboro Plaza in Queens is replaced by free shuttle buses
 

Edited by Far rockaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I dreaming or does Lexington Avenue actually not have any G.O's today?

Share this post


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

Am I dreaming or does Lexington Avenue actually not have any G.O's today?

Most likely due to the festival. They were rerouting some (4) and (5) trains via the local tracks earlier (don't know if that's still in effect). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SERVICE RESTORED
Effective Tuesday, Jun 11
J Service restored at 111 St

J trains stop at 111 St in both directions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me understand this?

If the (E) and (F) are running local along Queens Blvd, why is the (R) not ending at Queens Plaza?

Share this post


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

Can someone help me understand this?

If the (E) and (F) are running local along Queens Blvd, why is the (R) not ending at Queens Plaza?

Because the MTA is full of morons.

  • LMAO! 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Can someone help me understand this?

If the (E) and (F) are running local along Queens Blvd, why is the (R) not ending at Queens Plaza?

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Because the MTA is full of morons.

How would hey terminate at QP if D5 is out of service for the work requiring the (E)(F) to go local?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

How would hey terminate at QP if D5 is out of service for the work requiring the (E)(F) to go local?

 

 

Oh its D5 that's out of service...

 

what's D5 again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D5 is the Middle track at QP where trains relay to go back the other way (the Christmas Special trains relayed there before 2nd Ave opened).

Right now they're working on CBTC on the express tracks, since D5 is in between the Express tracks it gets locked out of service as well, for a number of reasons related to the specific work they're doing.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

D5 is the Middle track at QP where trains relay to go back the other way (the Christmas Special trains relayed there before 2nd Ave opened).

Right now they're working on CBTC on the express tracks, since D5 is in between the Express tracks it gets locked out of service as well, for a number of reasons related to the specific work they're doing.

D5 is out of service because work limits are written to the outage limits, not because there's actually any work going on on/around it. There would likely be a weekend or two where D5 access would actually be needed, but otherwise telling the good folks in Track Access to move the GO limits to the other side of switches 465 and 471 should do the trick. 

Share this post


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

D5 is out of service because work limits are written to the outage limits, not because there's actually any work going on on/around it. There would likely be a weekend or two where D5 access would actually be needed, but otherwise telling the good folks in Track Access to move the GO limits to the other side of switches 465 and 471 should do the trick. 

It's not a matter of penciling the lines to the switch, the power distribution is such that D5 has to be deenergized to power off D3/4. 

Then there's still the matter of Short-lining the (R) will still require deadhead and light equipment runs from Jamaica, other negatives that come with terminating lines at places without crew facilities. It would be nice to have the (R) out of the way while they fumigate. A crossover west of 71st would be ideal to run around a problem train. But that'll never happend. Working with what's available, sending the (R) to 179th (or even Union Turnpike with a relay), is the only alternative...and that idea seems DOA

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

It's not a matter of penciling the lines to the switch, the power distribution is such that D5 has to be deenergized to power off D3/4. 

Then there's still the matter of Short-lining the (R) will still require deadhead and light equipment runs from Jamaica, other negatives that come with terminating lines at places without crew facilities. It would be nice to have the (R) out of the way while they fumigate. A crossover west of 71st would be ideal to run around a problem train. But that'll never happend. Working with what's available, sending the (R) to 179th (or even Union Turnpike with a relay), is the only alternative...and that idea seems DOA

Ah, did not realize that the power block included D5. I had thought the break lay beyond...guess not!

Those operational issues are all issues, but — and not that any of this matters given the power issue — we are, in the end of the day, running a railroad for riders. Given the positive impact that a shortlined (R) would have had on (E)(F)(R) service, figuring out things like NIS moves isn’t all that big of an ask. And FWIW, (R)s would fumigate out of the way of all other traffic at Queens Plaza — not to say that they should necessarily be fumigating, but that’s a whole other discussion. 

Share this post


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

Ah, did not realize that the power block included D5. I had thought the break lay beyond...guess not!

Those operational issues are all issues, but — and not that any of this matters given the power issue — we are, in the end of the day, running a railroad for riders. Given the positive impact that a shortlined (R) would have had on (E)(F)(R) service, figuring out things like NIS moves isn’t all that big of an ask. And FWIW, (R)s would fumigate out of the way of all other traffic at Queens Plaza — not to say that they should necessarily be fumigating, but that’s a whole other discussion. 

Im not saying any of those challenges precludes using it (in theory), what Im saying is each of those hinderances adds a cost, whether it be more crews to allow breaks and lunches, paying crews to stage trains early or bring them back to Jamaica etc.

 

The MTA isnt just a service for riders, it serves everyone in the city, including the taxpayers. When that comes up against a schedule that is possible and meets baseline cost, there's no way the (mta) won't do that. Coupled to the fact that people will complain about losing out on a 1 seat ride on a holiday. Not a favorable scenario.

 

Personally I think the MTA was traumatised out of using QP as a terminal, they wouldn't allow the (G) to terminate there on Nights and Weekends when traffic was low. They even pulled the Holiday train to 2nd Ave denying tourists and fans a high speed run. All to avoid that terminal, I'm not sure if express trains can arrive when a local is crossing to D5. There arent even supplements to turn at QP so that bridge is burned.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Im not saying any of those challenges precludes using it (in theory), what Im saying is each of those hinderances adds a cost, whether it be more crews to allow breaks and lunches, paying crews to stage trains early or bring them back to Jamaica etc.

 

The MTA isnt just a service for riders, it serves everyone in the city, including the taxpayers. When that comes up against a schedule that is possible and meets baseline cost, there's no way the (mta) won't do that. Coupled to the fact that people will complain about losing out on a 1 seat ride on a holiday. Not a favorable scenario.

 

Personally I think the MTA was traumatised out of using QP as a terminal, they wouldn't allow the (G) to terminate there on Nights and Weekends when traffic was low. They even pulled the Holiday train to 2nd Ave denying tourists and fans a high speed run. All to avoid that terminal, I'm not sure if express trains can arrive when a local is crossing to D5. There arent even supplements to turn at QP so that bridge is burned.

 

Let's not pretend like this is simply a cost-negative move, though. Moving the (R) off Queens Boulevard is an large and immediate savings in train hours, and also exempts the (R) from all the requisite padding that comes with every QB GO. There are also downstream savings in overtime -- the (R) frequently busts through its added runtime -- and in crew predictability. Things like lunches, for whatever its worth, are already programmed into crew schedules, so that issue lies independent of whatever routing the (R) takes. Then we have suuuuper downstream effects like frequency/reliability-related revenue changes. Adding a few intervals to the weekend (R) and reaping the reliability benefits of non-involvement with whatever crap they're doing on the corridor would likely make weekend (R) service markedly more reliable, and thus more attractive. You would likely not see some massive gain in ridership, but to make these cost calculations (and the equivalent ones for (E) and (F) service with one less merge to deal with during GOs) agnostic of use changes is quite reductive, to say nothing of it being a misrepresentation of real-world budgetary dynamics.  An aside, but the MTA's non-consideration of revenue impacts of service changes/increases/reductions is a big issue -- ridership impacts dampen the positive/negative costs of those moves, yet are not considered which makes cuts more attractive and increases less. 

I'd be quite interested to know the answer to the question on D5 moves relative to one's ability to enter on D4. 

I don't think the holiday train was so much a cost of any particular fear, but instead of GOs and a wish to give tourists a ride to SAS (and then to 145). 

So yes, this operation wouldn't be a cakewalk, but nothing in this subway is -- everything requires some adjustment, and likely introduces some novel complexity. Doesn't make it inadvisable, though in this case the power issue renders it all moot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Let's not pretend like this is simply a cost-negative move, though. Moving the (R) off Queens Boulevard is an large and immediate savings in train hours, and also exempts the (R) from all the requisite padding that comes with every QB GO. There are also downstream savings in overtime -- the (R) frequently busts through its added runtime -- and in crew predictability. Things like lunches, for whatever its worth, are already programmed into crew schedules, so that issue lies independent of whatever routing the (R) takes. Then we have suuuuper downstream effects like frequency/reliability-related revenue changes. Adding a few intervals to the weekend (R) and reaping the reliability benefits of non-involvement with whatever crap they're doing on the corridor would likely make weekend (R) service markedly more reliable, and thus more attractive. You would likely not see some massive gain in ridership, but to make these cost calculations (and the equivalent ones for (E) and (F) service with one less merge to deal with during GOs) agnostic of use changes is quite reductive, to say nothing of it being a misrepresentation of real-world budgetary dynamics.  An aside, but the MTA's non-consideration of revenue impacts of service changes/increases/reductions is a big issue -- ridership impacts dampen the positive/negative costs of those moves, yet are not considered which makes cuts more attractive and increases less. 

I'd be quite interested to know the answer to the question on D5 moves relative to one's ability to enter on D4. 

I don't think the holiday train was so much a cost of any particular fear, but instead of GOs and a wish to give tourists a ride to SAS (and then to 145). 

So yes, this operation wouldn't be a cakewalk, but nothing in this subway is -- everything requires some adjustment, and likely introduces some novel complexity. Doesn't make it inadvisable, though in this case the power issue renders it all moot.

What about this idea?

 

(R) trains run every 20 minutes between 57th St-7th Av and Forest Hills-71st Avenue. Some (R) trains operate over the (Q) line from Times Square-42nd St to 96th St-2nd Av, the last stop.

(E) trains run local in both directions between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills-71st Avenue.

 

In this plan, you keep some (R) service un affected while also replacing it with the (E) on QBL.

Share this post


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

Let's not pretend like this is simply a cost-negative move, though. Moving the (R) off Queens Boulevard is an large and immediate savings in train hours, and also exempts the (R) from all the requisite padding that comes with every QB GO. There are also downstream savings in overtime -- the (R) frequently busts through its added runtime -- and in crew predictability. Things like lunches, for whatever its worth, are already programmed into crew schedules, so that issue lies independent of whatever routing the (R) takes. Then we have suuuuper downstream effects like frequency/reliability-related revenue changes. Adding a few intervals to the weekend (R) and reaping the reliability benefits of non-involvement with whatever crap they're doing on the corridor would likely make weekend (R) service markedly more reliable, and thus more attractive. You would likely not see some massive gain in ridership, but to make these cost calculations (and the equivalent ones for (E) and (F) service with one less merge to deal with during GOs) agnostic of use changes is quite reductive, to say nothing of it being a misrepresentation of real-world budgetary dynamics.  An aside, but the MTA's non-consideration of revenue impacts of service changes/increases/reductions is a big issue -- ridership impacts dampen the positive/negative costs of those moves, yet are not considered which makes cuts more attractive and increases less. 

I'd be quite interested to know the answer to the question on D5 moves relative to one's ability to enter on D4. 

I don't think the holiday train was so much a cost of any particular fear, but instead of GOs and a wish to give tourists a ride to SAS (and then to 145). 

So yes, this operation wouldn't be a cakewalk, but nothing in this subway is -- everything requires some adjustment, and likely introduces some novel complexity. Doesn't make it inadvisable, though in this case the power issue renders it all moot.

QP is a much less resilient terminal than Forest Hills, your only option is to relay and send them right back out (cutting off the (E)). Based on the video of the last time the GO was run the relay is about a 3 minute move (double ended, with the arriving T/o walking back and taking it back down the road), plus waiting for the line up and dwell time for the last stop so it could be 4 or 5 minutes. The number of added jobs to run QP will more than offset the minutes of OT saved, even if every crew down the corridor(E, F and R) claimed an extra 20 minutes pay it would still be favorable to pay the OT. Looking at the videos available I suspect it isn't possible to allow an arrival on D4 while a train crosses D3 to D5. 

I'm also very aware that T/Os get paid for lunch, what I was referring to is that you'll be paying people for  Lunch relief in another location for the local employees as well as paying employees 'no lunch' as QP will be at max capacity, and if we go with a 5 minute relay time the current service cannot be increased, which is why I'm dubious the (R) will perform ***MARKEDLY*** better with the tight turn around, single pocket terminal with no reserve capacity or storage space anywhere on the line.

Just a cursory glance of the last two weeks, QBL was responsible for 3-4 (R) train delays out of 12+ that were posted. The primary pain point being 4th Ave, the downside is that unlike FH, if Northbound service is delayed a yard crew cannot be easily called up to pull a train to the station, I believe those delays originating from the Dekalb Decimator will just propagate longer as Queens Plaza doesn't have the ability to pull gap trains from the yard. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Working with what's available, sending the (R) to 179th (or even Union Turnpike with a relay), is the only alternative...and that idea seems DOA

That would do wonders for weekend QBL service when GOs are in full force, especially e/b. The difference is noticeable, just like when the (R) went to 179 this weekend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

QP is a much less resilient terminal than Forest Hills, your only option is to relay and send them right back out (cutting off the (E)). Based on the video of the last time the GO was run the relay is about a 3 minute move (double ended, with the arriving T/o walking back and taking it back down the road), plus waiting for the line up and dwell time for the last stop so it could be 4 or 5 minutes. The number of added jobs to run QP will more than offset the minutes of OT saved, even if every crew down the corridor(E, F and R) claimed an extra 20 minutes pay it would still be favorable to pay the OT. Looking at the videos available I suspect it isn't possible to allow an arrival on D4 while a train crosses D3 to D5. 

I'm also very aware that T/Os get paid for lunch, what I was referring to is that you'll be paying people for  Lunch relief in another location for the local employees as well as paying employees 'no lunch' as QP will be at max capacity, and if we go with a 5 minute relay time the current service cannot be increased, which is why I'm dubious the (R) will perform ***MARKEDLY*** better with the tight turn around, single pocket terminal with no reserve capacity or storage space anywhere on the line.

Just a cursory glance of the last two weeks, QBL was responsible for 3-4 (R) train delays out of 12+ that were posted. The primary pain point being 4th Ave, the downside is that unlike FH, if Northbound service is delayed a yard crew cannot be easily called up to pull a train to the station, I believe those delays originating from the Dekalb Decimator will just propagate longer as Queens Plaza doesn't have the ability to pull gap trains from the yard. 

The point about terminal resiliency is a good one, but again, I don't think this is so simple. Whenever the (E)(F)(R) share a track northbound into Forest Hills (which is frequently these days), the former two get absolutely wrecked by the latter's terminal process. Forest Hills seems to do a decent enough job remembering not to fumigate weekdays, but on weekends things don't seem to work out so great. This would eliminate that source of congestion, and while it would indeed introduce a crossing move at Queens Plaza, I daresay that'd be less impactful than the whole shebang at Forest Hills. I concede the ease of access to yard pulls, but I'd be interested to know how often that is actually done -- certainly doesn't seem all too frequent what with the number of gaps that ricochet through that terminal.

I'm confused on your point on crewing. We already pay most of those costs to turn trains at Forest Hills. 

Both you and I know that the words 'on time' mean jack shit on weekends -- especially on the (R). I can't think of the last time they didn't give the (R) +8 mins through the 11th St cut, which is of course on top of whatever pile of holds they're throwing at Brooklyn. The issue, anyway, isn't so much the delays per se but the variability incurred on Queens Boulevard. Ops under flagging are...variable as hell; congestion propagates much faster, dwells get longer, and the actual area of slow speed changes from time to time (and there is of course always the chance you'll hit full flagging at some point). This is all to say that your average weekend (R) incurs a hell of a lot more variability on the Queens Boulevard corridor than is normal on weekdays. These gaps likely do not show up on reporting databases both because it doesn't take much to massacre 12 min headway service, and because of the aforementioned padding, but they're absolutely felt by riders who suffer 20+ min gaps regularly because of it. Would that behavior disappear if the (R) was pulled from QB? No -- as you say, 4th, Broadway, whatever shade of hell Dekalb has chosen for the weekend all will play roles. But it'd certainly help in a tangible way. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The point about terminal resiliency is a good one, but again, I don't think this is so simple. Whenever the (E)(F)(R) share a track northbound into Forest Hills (which is frequently these days), the former two get absolutely wrecked by the latter's terminal process. Forest Hills seems to do a decent enough job remembering not to fumigate weekdays, but on weekends things don't seem to work out so great. This would eliminate that source of congestion, and while it would indeed introduce a crossing move at Queens Plaza, I daresay that'd be less impactful than the whole shebang at Forest Hills. I concede the ease of access to yard pulls, but I'd be interested to know how often that is actually done -- certainly doesn't seem all too frequent what with the number of gaps that ricochet through that terminal.

I'm confused on your point on crewing. We already pay most of those costs to turn trains at Forest Hills. 

Both you and I know that the words 'on time' mean jack shit on weekends -- especially on the (R). I can't think of the last time they didn't give the (R) +8 mins through the 11th St cut, which is of course on top of whatever pile of holds they're throwing at Brooklyn. The issue, anyway, isn't so much the delays per se but the variability incurred on Queens Boulevard. Ops under flagging are...variable as hell; congestion propagates much faster, dwells get longer, and the actual area of slow speed changes from time to time (and there is of course always the chance you'll hit full flagging at some point). This is all to say that your average weekend (R) incurs a hell of a lot more variability on the Queens Boulevard corridor than is normal on weekdays. These gaps likely do not show up on reporting databases both because it doesn't take much to massacre 12 min headway service, and because of the aforementioned padding, but they're absolutely felt by riders who suffer 20+ min gaps regularly because of it. Would that behavior disappear if the (R) was pulled from QB? No -- as you say, 4th, Broadway, whatever shade of hell Dekalb has chosen for the weekend all will play roles. But it'd certainly help in a tangible way. 

Adding a switch at Forest Hills to allow (R) trains to go out of service on the express track would do a lot! I have to deal with this mess almost every weekend. If that isn't done, ending (R) service at Queens Plaza is th best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Adding a switch at Forest Hills to allow (R) trains to go out of service on the express track would do a lot! I have to deal with this mess almost every weekend. If that isn't done, ending (R) service at Queens Plaza is th best option.

I agree, or at least making it so that whenever they’re on one track into Forest Hills, the (R) gets sent to 179.

Queens Plaza could work, but would require new levels of coordination to rectify the issues Jsun raised, as well as ensuring that D5 just has power. 

I’d love it if they reinstalled the crossover in the 11 St cut. Then you could, in a pinch, use Queens Plaza as a turnback...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I agree, or at least making it so that whenever they’re on one track into Forest Hills, the (R) gets sent to 179.

Queens Plaza could work, but would require new levels of coordination to rectify the issues Jsun raised, as well as ensuring that D5 just has power. 

I’d love it if they reinstalled the crossover in the 11 St cut. Then you could, in a pinch, use Queens Plaza as a turnback...

There was a crossover in the 11th Street cut? When was it removed, and what possible justification for that could there have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

There was a crossover in the 11th Street cut? When was it removed, and what possible justification for that could there have been?

What’s the 11th St Cut ?

Edited by Maxwell179

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

Where’s the 11th St Cut ?

The connection between the 60th Street Tunnel and the Queens Boulevard Line.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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