Trainmaster5 Posted August 17, 2012 Share #26 Posted August 17, 2012 Now wheres the fun in that Harry? Some of the responses are most amusing! Like the split Franklin Shuttle idea? BTW, who controls the shuttle line now? If the tower at Prospect Park is OOS wouldn't that be DeKalb's job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted August 17, 2012 Share #27 Posted August 17, 2012 The main thing I would have done: Cut the to 300' trains and have it run from Coney Island-Botanic Garden station in Brooklyn (terminating on the Prospect Park-bound track) while the regular ran a single train from Botanic Garden-Franklin Avenue on the Franklin Avenue-Bound track. That would have allowed Brighton riders who normally transfer from the at Atlantic Avenue to instead make that transfer at Franklin Avenue and have from there a one-seat ride on the Brighton line instead of two. I believe Botanic Garden is a 300'+ station and that could be done for something like this. This is not the best idea. Besides you're just messing up the whole line. You might have a 4 minute wait, then another 4 minute wait, then a 30 minute wait, to a 30 second wait, to another 30 second wait, to another minute wait,to another minute wait,to another minute wait, to a 10 minute wait, to a 6 minute wait, to a 2 hour wait, and you are gonna explode the brighton Line. Good lord there wasnt any accidents. Damn I hope you understand that your way will never be the MTA's way unless you think of something logical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTOMan Posted August 17, 2012 Share #28 Posted August 17, 2012 Like the split Franklin Shuttle idea? BTW, who controls the shuttle line now? If the tower at Prospect Park is OOS wouldn't that be DeKalb's job? Yep DeKalb Controls the area now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 17, 2012 Share #29 Posted August 17, 2012 And then? How would additional 8 Av local service help customers get to the BMT South Division lines? (Hint: the would not be able to carry all those passengers). Just to get some trains out of the way. If you read, it said [sOUTHBOUND SELECT]. Not [ALL TRAINS]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted August 17, 2012 Share #30 Posted August 17, 2012 Just to get some trains out of the way. If you read, it said [sOUTHBOUND SELECT]. Not [ALL TRAINS]. I want to be polite. I really do, but this is just too much. Why the hell you would ever want to send a train to Lefferts? First off, if you're trying to cut overcrowding, you're doing it wrong because the together will cause delays. After Euclid, the will have to merge with the thus causing even more delays. At least your idea isn't as stupid as taking the time to physically separate subway cars during the height of an emergency like the genius who thinks that the blue font makes him cool. At least he didn't suggest screwing up the transit museum and terminating trains there this time. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic how these insanely ineffective and just outright stupid solutions are being posted in a thread which has a purpose of pointing out what the MTA could've done better?? I mean really, where do you guys come up with this stuff anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 17, 2012 Share #31 Posted August 17, 2012 I want to be polite.I highly, highly doubt that. Why the hell you would ever want to send a train to Lefferts? First off, if you're trying to cut overcrowding, you're doing it wrong because the together will cause delays. After Euclid, the will have to merge with the thus causing even more delays. You could've just explained (calmly and respectfully) that sending the to Lefferts will cause unnecessary merging delays with the ...Having the on one track shouldn't be much of an issue IMO. Solution: terminate the at either WTC or Euclid. At least your idea isn't as stupid as taking the time to physically separate subway cars during the height of an emergency like the genius who thinks that the blue font makes him cool. At least he didn't suggest screwing up the transit museum and terminating trains there this time. No need to get personal with this...I think you're taking this too far, regardless of how bad some people's ideas are. Is it just me, or does anyone else find it ironic how these insanely ineffective and just outright stupid solutions are being posted in a thread which has a purpose of pointing out what the MTA could've done better?? I mean really, where do you guys come up with this stuff anyways? Man, you really do take this *%#^@ too seriously...Calm down! It's just subway proposals. What does bashing people over something as silly as this achieve? Saying stuff like this (every single time people come up with bad ideas) is almost as ridiculous as the ideas themselves. If you're going to post on a public forum, you're going to have to accept that people don't always have good ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedChikkin Posted August 17, 2012 Share #32 Posted August 17, 2012 I was stuck on the R train in the tunnel by 57th st/7th Ave stop when this happened. Funny was that the conductor didn't realize he still had the announcement button keyed and we all heard the radio traffic from the rail control center from his radio for a good 20 mins. He was told to proceed to Whitehall on all clear signals and wait at the station for further instructions. I knew what was going on. I guest he was new on the job because twice he accidently turned off the lights on the train. Reminded me of the redbirds when going through switches... If on the rare R-160 on the he might have pressed the Radio over PA button to be lazy and save himself from making announcements. OR, if on the usual R-46, I can only surmise that the PA button got stuck because there's no way I'd hold that sucker down for long to save myself from making manual announcements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 17, 2012 Share #33 Posted August 17, 2012 Why the hell you would ever want to send a train to Lefferts? First off, if you're trying to cut overcrowding, you're doing it wrong because the together will cause delays. After Euclid, the will have to merge with the thus causing even more delays. Well just send that sh*t over the from Jay. And cut it to Euclid. What is the problem there, o wise one. Tell me what the hell is wrong with that. Go ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted August 17, 2012 Share #34 Posted August 17, 2012 Well just send that sh*t over the from Jay. And cut it to Euclid. What is the problem there, o wise one. Tell me what the hell is wrong with that. Go ahead. What's the point? If you want to get them out of the way, just have them run back uptown to Concourse Yard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted August 18, 2012 Share #35 Posted August 18, 2012 Wasn't the B cut completely during the fire? To be honest, that's the best option. Its kind of a "supplemental" route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 18, 2012 Share #36 Posted August 18, 2012 Some went to 2 Av. Some were cut. I am just saying that select ones southbound would go to Euclid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 18, 2012 Share #37 Posted August 18, 2012 Wasn't the B cut completely during the fire? To be honest, that's the best option. Its kind of a "supplemental" route. You can't just cut a route instantly. That's what sometimes bothers me about people's What If? solutions. You have to get all of the trains to the yard (or laid up) first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted August 18, 2012 Share #38 Posted August 18, 2012 Wasn't the B cut completely during the fire? To be honest, that's the best option. Its kind of a "supplemental" route. That's actually the first and the best option in a case like this. Stop service(s) from entering the affected area, in this case Grand St and the bridge for B and D service. Next you try to estimate how long the outage will be. 5-10 minutes or so I, personally, would discharge the trains closest to the blockage and start stacking trains in the Grand St area while turning trains at B'way-Lafayette via Second Ave and back northbound providing n/b service. 20+ minutes we move on to option #2. If they back up s/b start discharging at 34th-6 and W 4th and let them stack up there (between the stations). If an opening occurs run a B or D via the F, in service if needed, out to Stillwell. There would be no need to send a train over the Fulton St line to Euclid in any case. I don't remember how long the outage was, help me out people, but doing it my way or something similar would remove the possibility of "orphan" B or D trains being strewn around the system when service went normal again. I've seen it happen on the 5 and it's screwed up when the dispatchers at either end have no trains or crews to resume service. Just my take. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 18, 2012 Share #39 Posted August 18, 2012 Only like 2 or 3 god damn trains. Is that so hard? Are 2 or 3 trains gonna clog up the entire Fulton St? Thought so. You people need to read before you post. All my god damn respect to you, but is it really that hard to understand? Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 18, 2012 Share #40 Posted August 18, 2012 Only like 2 or 3 god damn trains. Is that so hard? Are 2 or 3 trains gonna clog up the entire Fulton St? Thought so. You people need to read before you post. All my god damn respect to you, but is it really that hard to understand? Sheesh. Agreed. I see what you meant. I also feel the same way you do. This is why I don't care anymore and just move on. It's like pulling teenth and taking to a brick wall even in person. It's like when you give out an attempt/plan that shouldn've happened as a suggestion, people will start throwing jokeable questions and insults. This is why I ain't chilling out anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted August 18, 2012 Share #41 Posted August 18, 2012 Only like 2 or 3 god damn trains. Is that so hard? Are 2 or 3 trains gonna clog up the entire Fulton St? Thought so. You people need to read before you post. All my god damn respect to you, but is it really that hard to understand? Sheesh. Maybe they won't clog the line, but it still doesn't make sense to send a train all the way to Lefferts. If you need to find a terminal for the , WTC makes a lot more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 18, 2012 Share #42 Posted August 18, 2012 Maybe they won't clog the line, but it still doesn't make sense to send a train all the way to Lefferts. If you need to find a terminal for the , WTC makes a lot more sense. This is 100% reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted August 18, 2012 Share #43 Posted August 18, 2012 Only like 2 or 3 god damn trains. Is that so hard? Are 2 or 3 trains gonna clog up the entire Fulton St? Thought so. You people need to read before you post. All my god damn respect to you, but is it really that hard to understand? Sheesh. The point I was making is that you would send the trains to a terminal that would need and use those trains and their crews. That would be Stillwell/Brighton Beach on the south end and Bedford Park on the north. I can tell you from experience that no dispatcher in the system wants a "foreign" train clogging up his/her terminal. The RCC is staffed by dispatchers and have that mentality. If you study the actions they took during the outage, which were posted earlier in this thread, that's what they did for the most part. I ,personally, never said sending a 6th Avenue train along the Fulton St line would clog anything but why would RCC need/want to do that ? The problem was on the Broadway and Sixth Avenue lines AFAIK so why mess with the Eighth Ave-Fulton service ? To appease railfans who'd love to see a B or a D in service on the Fulton St line? When those trains arrived at Euclid Ave where would they go? To the Pitkin Yard and wait? If the problem wasn't cleared up yet you sure couldn't send them back north and if it was cleared up some terminal would be missing 2 or 3 trains and their crews when service went back to normal. I can say without a doubt that the person at RCC who made such a decision would be in deep doo-doo when the final report was being written on the incident. The only one who could get away with your scenario would be the Desk Superintendant himself and I can assure you he/she wouldn't have reached that title by thinking like your plan calls for. As I said in my earlier post the first step is to isolate the problem area. Under your scenario those 2 or 3 trains being sent along Fulton St equals a failure to isolate because you've spread the problem to another area. The scenario I posted has been the mantra from day one in the subways. It was used on 9/11. It's been used on passenger railroads forever. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 18, 2012 Share #44 Posted August 18, 2012 Maybe they won't clog the line, but it still doesn't make sense to send a train all the way to Lefferts. If you need to find a terminal for the , WTC makes a lot more sense. Ok I will roll with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 18, 2012 Share #45 Posted August 18, 2012 The point I was making is that you would send the trains to a terminal that would need and use those trains and their crews. That would be Stillwell/Brighton Beach on the south end and Bedford Park on the north. I can tell you from experience that no dispatcher in the system wants a "foreign" train clogging up his/her terminal. The RCC is staffed by dispatchers and have that mentality. If you study the actions they took during the outage, which were posted earlier in this thread, that's what they did for the most part. I ,personally, never said sending a 6th Avenue train along the Fulton St line would clog anything but why would RCC need/want to do that ? The problem was on the Broadway and Sixth Avenue lines AFAIK so why mess with the Eighth Ave-Fulton service ? To appease railfans who'd love to see a B or a D in service on the Fulton St line? When those trains arrived at Euclid Ave where would they go? To the Pitkin Yard and wait? If the problem wasn't cleared up yet you sure couldn't send them back north and if it was cleared up some terminal would be missing 2 or 3 trains and their crews when service went back to normal. I can say without a doubt that the person at RCC who made such a decision would be in deep doo-doo when the final report was being written on the incident. The only one who could get away with your scenario would be the Desk Superintendant himself and I can assure you he/she wouldn't have reached that title by thinking like your plan calls for. As I said in my earlier post the first step is to isolate the problem area. Under your scenario those 2 or 3 trains being sent along Fulton St equals a failure to isolate because you've spread the problem to another area. The scenario I posted has been the mantra from day one in the subways. It was used on 9/11. It's been used on passenger railroads forever. Carry on. I was going to like this but I've reached my positive votes for the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 18, 2012 Share #46 Posted August 18, 2012 To get trains to WTC, I would terminate trains at 34th and put them on the express track. That way, the could also terminate at WTC if nessecary. Also, I would make the or 7th Avenue local to get riders to Brooklyn from 59th St, Columbus Cir. Plus, and trains could run to MetroTech, service could run to Canal and layup on the tracks to the City Hall Lowee Level. I would stack trains in Manhattan or in Queens on the express tracks in Manhattan. trains in Brooklyn should terminate at Prospect Park, trains could run express on Brighton as normal and terminate at Prospect Park. I would run a one-track shuttle to Atlantic Avenue from Prospect Park. 4th Avenue, I'm not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
checkmatechamp13 Posted August 18, 2012 Share #47 Posted August 18, 2012 To get trains to WTC, I would terminate trains at 34th and put them on the express track. That way, the could also terminate at WTC if nessecary. Also, I would make the or 7th Avenue local to get riders to Brooklyn from 59th St, Columbus Cir. As Trainmaster said, there's no point in sending a line to a "foreign" terminal. If you have to cut the back to 34th Street to accomodate the , then you might as well have the be the ones to be cut back to 34th Street (of course, on the 6th Avenue Line instead of 8th Avenue). Just carry out the plan of moving the terminals back: Have trains terminate at Grand Street and start stacking them on the tracks there, while having the trains going back to The Bronx turning around at 2nd Avenue. When there's not enough capacity for that, turn them at West 4th Street, and then 34th Street. As for the , there's no point in screwing up the 7th Avenue Line. You'll have 3 lines on the local tracks, which would delay the service for riders in Brooklyn (at the time when it's needed the most). If riders need the , they'll have to take the to get there. Either that, or take the to the and try to get a bus home or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 18, 2012 Share #48 Posted August 18, 2012 As Trainmaster said, there's no point in sending a line to a "foreign" terminal. If you have to cut the back to 34th Street to accomodate the , then you might as well have the be the ones to be cut back to 34th Street (of course, on the 6th Avenue Line instead of 8th Avenue). Just carry out the plan of moving the terminals back: Have trains terminate at Grand Street and start stacking them on the tracks there, while having the trains going back to The Bronx turning around at 2nd Avenue. When there's not enough capacity for that, turn them at West 4th Street, and then 34th Street. As for the , there's no point in screwing up the 7th Avenue Line. You'll have 3 lines on the local tracks, which would delay the service for riders in Brooklyn (at the time when it's needed the most). If riders need the , they'll have to take the to get there. Either that, or take the to the and try to get a bus home or something. It wouldn't be too hard... trains just have to run up 8th Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 18, 2012 Share #49 Posted August 18, 2012 Instead I think trains should of ran on the Crosstown to make it easier for trains to terminate trains in Manhattan. This would free up 2nd Avenue, and make it so trains can terminate at Second Avenue and not disrupt the maximum TPH on 6th Avenue. Then you wouldn't have to stack trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 18, 2012 Share #50 Posted August 18, 2012 Might I remind everyone once again that this is only like 1 or 2 trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.