R to 179th Street-Jamaica?

[bobtehpanda]

Well yes true I see where you got the official source, you are correct. The loading capacity guidelines has been changed, allowing for more standees, from 100% previously to 125% currently, in anticipation of more crowded trains as a result of overall reductions of service due to the budget cuts.  

 

If I may, allow me to clarify: The data I chose to follow for rough comparisons with both routes in regards to crushloading on the QBL before the 63rd Street connector was built were from sources compiled before the 2010 budget cuts and that includes the IRT Lexington line. One of the studies were cited in a NY Times article right before the cuts were to take effect.

 

Links: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/queen.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html?_r=1&

 

However if you may provide more current sources for my knowledge by all means I encourage you to post, as that will go for good conversation in the light of the QBL CBTC project to start late into next year. I am always up learning something new.

 

I don't doubt that the QBL is very congested (the platforms at Roosevelt during the peak are evidence enough - it's as bad, if not worse than Lexington, and unlike Lexington the surface options aren't very comprehensive), but I don't have statistics. The MTA website is seemingly designed to make getting statistics as painful as possible - for instance, the bus ridership and station ridership stats could be uploaded as spreadsheet files, which are both commonly used and easily sortable. Instead, we get static web pages that are only sorted alphanumerically, in A-Z order.

 

The MTA website is very good if you want to know how you're going to get to a place at the exact moment you go on. It's not very useful for anything else, and NYCT isn't even the most poorly designed section of the website. (That would probably go to either LIRR or MTACC.)

[realizm]

I don't doubt that the QBL is very congested (the platforms at Roosevelt during the peak are evidence enough - it's as bad, if not worse than Lexington, and unlike Lexington the surface options aren't very comprehensive), but I don't have statistics. The MTA website is seemingly designed to make getting statistics as painful as possible - for instance, the bus ridership and station ridership stats could be uploaded as spreadsheet files, which are both commonly used and easily sortable. Instead, we get static web pages that are only sorted alphanumerically, in A-Z order.

 

The MTA website is very good if you want to know how you're going to get to a place at the exact moment you go on. It's not very useful for anything else, and NYCT isn't even the most poorly designed section of the website. (That would probably go to either LIRR or MTACC.)

Well now, the QBL isn't bad at all and kudos to the T/D's for proper dispatching. But during the early 90's, forget it. Insane commute, I mean from personal experience living in Jamaica I had to sit and let trains pass by just to find one that I can squeeze into.

 

... still figuring out the mta.info site for good stats sources, so far so good, but I agree it's a major project trying to figure out the table of contents, killer. I think so too; the software engineers purposefully make it hard, in fact I'm very sure.

[Fresh Pond]

@Union Tpike: Even though your name suggests that you have plenty of experience, I'm trusting bobtehpanda on this one. He's usually right on spot when it comes statistics, just like AndrewJC.

But he said he uses the station on the regular...I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

[CenSin]

But he said he uses the station on the regular...I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

Numbers are good for quantifying and comparing amongst different stations/routes/lines/systems/etc. Experience is good for measuring rider perceptions. It's objective versus subjective. Nothing will change the statistics, but perception changes from person to person. And if one wants to make an opinion based on only numbers, they should draw those opinions from a related but different experience.

[bobtehpanda]

But he said he uses the station on the regular...I'm pretty sure he knows what he's talking about

 

I passed through Kew Gardens-Union Tpke on a regular basis on the and . Seats at 71st Continental I can believe, because you've got all the people getting off to go to Queens Center. Seats at Roosevelt is a bit less believable, because even midday on a Sunday during the summer I had trouble finding seats. Kew Gardens - Union Tpke westbound is a particular congestion point, though - no one has gotten off for the QB local yet, but everyone on the Q46, Q43, and SE Queens routes is still on the trains.

 

Well now, the QBL isn't bad at all and kudos to the T/D's for proper dispatching.

 

QBL is honestly a dispatching miracle, with all the weaving of services (R from the congested 60th St tubes, two trains diverging onto different tracks for the 53rd St tubes, and the F cutting into both the express tracks after Queens Plaza and then switching to local at 75th Av)

 

I'm still mystified as to how the MTA has not found a way to get rid of the nasty eastbound crawl between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, though. You'd think that with years of scheduling and experience with the issue that it'd be done by now...

[R32 3838]

What killed the going to 179th stwas briarwood and 169th that killed it, but when they have GO's where the E,F and R goes local or express the R needs to go to 179th Like in 2006-09 now that the R goes its normal route even when they do these GO's its a pain in the ass when you have turn around R's while you have E/F's waiting

[realizm]

QBL is honestly a dispatching miracle, with all the weaving of services (R from the congested 60th St tubes, two trains diverging onto different tracks for the 53rd St tubes, and the F cutting into both the express tracks after Queens Plaza and then switching to local at 75th Av)

 

I'm still mystified as to how the MTA has not found a way to get rid of the nasty eastbound crawl between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt, though. You'd think that with years of scheduling and experience with the issue that it'd be done by now...

 

Refer to this link on the 20 year needs assessment, page 17 on the pdf: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/TYN_Vision_7-22-13.pdf

 

Also these links: 

 

1) http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/10_14/agencies/t/t6080319_all_data.htm

 

2) http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/10_14/agencies/t/t6080310_all_data.htm

 

We know this but for the record, the MTA will modernize interlockings at key points on the trunk line and most importantly install CBTC. That (hopefully) will reduce headways, increase TPH and line capacity on the trains, and allow for higher speeds. The 53rd Street tunnel and corridor is on target for CBTC and will extend all the way to Union Turnpike in Queens. Phase 1 of IND QBL CBTC installation will begin next year. So the problems addressed will be fixed very soon now, the CCC plan is right around the corner.

 

So this should give the T/Ds the edge in bringing the QBL to it's full potential to dispatch trains accordingly.

 

Snapshots:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now my question is this: What about the rolling stock to take advantage of this new technology with the in service R160's, and the upcoming R179's in development?

[CenSin]

Now my question is this: What about the rolling stock to take advantage of this new technology with the in service R160's, and the upcoming R179's in development?

Another good question would be: would sending one of the locals to Jamaica enable higher frequencies along the local tracks? The procedures for turning local trains at Forest Hills currently causes a lot of delays. I'm not sure how much CBTC will help there since there is no computer-based making-sure-everyone-is-off-the-train system.

[Vistausss]

They could use cameras to check if everyone is off the train. That's a start to make turning faster.

[realizm]

Another good question would be: would sending one of the locals to Jamaica enable higher frequencies along the local tracks? The procedures for turning local trains at Forest Hills currently causes a lot of delays. I'm not sure how much CBTC will help there since there is no computer-based making-sure-everyone-is-off-the-train system.

Now that will be in the responsible hands of the train crews themselves.

 

Fumigation policy in accordance with the SOP, from what I gather according to my layman knowledge of it, is the blinking the lights on and off, waiting 15-30 seconds, closing the doors, inspecting the cars then and departing for the relay then turnaround. If the T/O, C/R and T/D personnel sticks to the SOP to a tee, then that particular shouldn't be a problem. 

 

Sending 's to 179th could create bottlenecking at the heavily used track switch points @ 75th Ave, Van Wyck Blvd, as well as at 179th Street anyway, delaying the and alike for many reasons. So I think the QBL locals making the turnaround at 71st-Continental, as is, utilizing the relay tracks along the ROW to Jamaica Yard, should suffice. But we will see what the RCC and superintendents finally decides to do when the CBTC project is finally completed.

 

They could use cameras to check if everyone is off the train. That's a start to make turning faster.

Well cameras may become standard on new rolling stock yet to be completely designed and built so that is a thought. We do have a set of R160's in service that is equipped with surveillance cameras from a pilot project on the feasibility of retrofitting the R160's with cameras.

[R32 3838]

179th is big enough for 2 lines, but when they have these GO's with the R going exp with the E/F to 71 or all 3 lines local its better to send the R to 179th, when they take R's OOS it delays E/F service because of checking the train for passengers, its a pain in the ass especially at night when they have GO's starting from 10, that's an issue and theres delays up to 30 minutes because of taking R's OOS to the yard/lay up, during the week they should end the R early as well if these GO's go on, weekends it should go to 179th

[N6 Limited]

Are they going to use Fastrack to install the CBTC on the QB line? It took forever on the and they had many weekends of no service. But then again it's a 4 track line so maybe they don't have to shut down whole sections at a time, (except for the 53rd st line)

 

Also, if phase one is 50th street to Union Turnpike, does that mean the T/O will control the train from WTC to 50th St, let CBTC take over, and resume control at Union Turnpike? 

How would the work with this? Will they add in 21st Queens Bridge into phase 1, so that the system can take over from that stop , as opposed to the T/O stopping at a signal before the crossover switch near 36 st?

 

edit:Can they install higher speed cross overs?

[NYSubwayBuff]

What is CBTC?

[CenSin]

What is CBTC?

I hope this isn't a troll question… Your user name is NYSubwayBuff.

[Amtrak7]

GO: 10pm to midnight Oct 21-24 to 179th.

[Around the Horn]

Are they going to use Fastrack to install the CBTC on the QB line? It took forever on the and they had many weekends of no service. But then again it's a 4 track line so maybe they don't have to shut down whole sections at a time, (except for the 53rd st line)

 

Also, if phase one is 50th street to Union Turnpike, does that mean the T/O will control the train from WTC to 50th St, let CBTC take over, and resume control at Union Turnpike? 

How would the work with this? Will they add in 21st Queens Bridge into phase 1, so that the system can take over from that stop , as opposed to the T/O stopping at a signal before the crossover switch near 36 st?

 

edit:Can they install higher speed cross overs?

Those questions are good ones but I doubt the crossovers can be higher speed than what they already were...

[N6 Limited]

And another question. The L and 7 have stub terminals. How will the QB Local trains Relay with CBTC? Will the computer control that or will the T/O's handle that?

[RtrainBlues]

The E and F are already at maximum capacity during rush-hour along Queens Blvd.  I certainly wouldn't want F express service to be cut at 179th so that some R locals could squeeze in to 179th.  Especially around 6pm, if you just miss a Bklyn-bound F at 179th, there is another one only 2 to 5 minutes away.  The F is one of the best lines in the system during rush-hour.  I would be really upset if I saw that the next train leaving 179th were an R local - I'd immediately switch at Union Tpke for an E express.

[realizm]

Are they going to use Fastrack to install the CBTC on the QB line? It took forever on the and they had many weekends of no service. But then again it's a 4 track line so maybe they don't have to shut down whole sections at a time, (except for the 53rd st line)

 

Also, if phase one is 50th street to Union Turnpike, does that mean the T/O will control the train from WTC to 50th St, let CBTC take over, and resume control at Union Turnpike? 

How would the work with this? Will they add in 21st Queens Bridge into phase 1, so that the system can take over from that stop , as opposed to the T/O stopping at a signal before the crossover switch near 36 st?

 

edit:Can they install higher speed cross overs?

And another question. The L and 7 have stub terminals. How will the QB Local trains Relay with CBTC? Will the computer control that or will the T/O's handle that?

 

In general, I think the answer is yes. A CBTC system can be retrofitted into a legacy fixed signal block system with rolling stock capable to run in both enviorments. The San Francisco MUNI system has such a setup in place, where along the ROW on the subway portion of the line is CBTC signaling while the street level portions are not.  The LRV's are set up in such a way that the operator can switch modes on the fly as the cars enter in and out of the CBTC zone from subway to street level, and vice versa.

 

But because of the fact that this as an unusual layout where legacy fixed block signal and CBTC systems co-exists in the same ROW, alot of bugs had to be worked out in the LRV's to make the system work.

 

I can only imagine then how nightmarish this can be in a NYC subway setting.... But yes it can be done.

 

The R179 order (currently but subject to change) is consisting of 65 4 car units but only 8 5 car units, mostly to replace all existing R32 and R42 cars. So as for what rolling stock will be deployed in this scenerio? I guess I will have to say R160's retrofitted for CBTC in such a scenerio where we will have a circuit where a legacy fixed signal block and CTBC system co-exists along the same ROW. I do not know if the MTA will purchase additional R179 cars for QBL CBTC, no information on this as of yet.

 

Also keep in mind that the CBTC retrofitted line regardless in this situation, must be clear of trains not equipped with CBTC communications for this to work, but you know this already.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That is a good question. Unless the R46s are gone by the time QBL is equipped with CBTC, how will they interact with the new signalling system. Or will they be displaced to other yards (Coney Island, perhaps) and get additional R160s in return? The 5-car 179s are, so far, not planned to go to Jamaica or Coney.

[Guest Lance]

They (the 46s that is) will most likely be gone by the time Queens Blvd is equipped for CBTC. Flushing won't be completed until 2016 and significant work began last year. Unless they do both projects concurrently or the time needed drops dramatically, we're looking at 2020 at the earliest for Queens Blvd CBTC. And as you said, even if the project is completed before all the 46s are retired, there will be enough 160s and 179s available for the line.

[RollOver]

The 40 R179 cars in sets of five are much more likely to head for just 207th Street for service to push off 40 R46 cars in sets of four to Jamaica, where they would push off 50 R160 cars in sets of five to Coney Island for a restored rather than more and/or service in the reverse peak direction at rush hour and/or any other time of the day for that matter.

 

The and trains are more likely to be a mixed fleet of R160s and R211s by the time the R46s are fully retired and Queens Boulevard is fully CBTC. So Jamaica would more likely continue to maintain two different types of cars and same goes for Coney Island as well as all other yards in the subway system aside from East New York.

[CenSin]

The E and F are already at maximum capacity during rush-hour along Queens Blvd.  I certainly wouldn't want F express service to be cut at 179th so that some R locals could squeeze in to 179th.  Especially around 6pm, if you just miss a Bklyn-bound F at 179th, there is another one only 2 to 5 minutes away.  The F is one of the best lines in the system during rush-hour.  I would be really upset if I saw that the next train leaving 179th were an R local - I'd immediately switch at Union Tpke for an E express.

I'm not sure how the trains get turned back at Jamaica–179 Street, but aren't the relay tracks configured so that trains can turn without getting in each other's way? The track maps on NYCSubway.org aren't very clear. It looks as if it were laid out the same as Kensington–Church Avenue. Down there, the express trains can use the switches on the upper level, while local trains can use the switches on the lower level. Both local and express trains can turn simultaneously.

[itmaybeokay]

The E and F are already at maximum capacity during rush-hour along Queens Blvd.  I certainly wouldn't want F express service to be cut at 179th so that some R locals could squeeze in to 179th.  Especially around 6pm, if you just miss a Bklyn-bound F at 179th, there is another one only 2 to 5 minutes away.  The F is one of the best lines in the system during rush-hour.  I would be really upset if I saw that the next train leaving 179th were an R local - I'd immediately switch at Union Tpke for an E express.

 

While I feel it would be a bad idea to extend the R any further than it already is - it could be extended to 179 without cutting any F service. 

 

Assuming the F stayed on the express tracks along Hillside, 179 could turn both the F and the R. 

I mean, to be fair, 179 could theoretically turn the E, F, M, and R trains running at full capacity if fumigating the trains were a non-issue. 

That terminal has an insanely high relay capacity. Wikipedia lists it at 63 TPH. The E and F combined are 30tph, the M and R are less-frequent than that.

 

Not that ANY of that is a good idea. But it is theoretically possible. 

I'm not sure how the trains get turned back at Jamaica–179 Street, but aren't the relay tracks configured so that trains can turn without getting in each other's way? The track maps on NYCSubway.org aren't very clear. It looks as if it were laid out the same as Kensington–Church Avenue. Down there, the express trains can use the switches on the upper level, while local trains can use the switches on the lower level. Both local and express trains can turn simultaneously.

 

That's exactly right. 

 

 

 

To the east (railroad north) are two levels of four relay tracks each extending out to 185th Street. This total of eight storage tracks gives 179th Street the highest peak terminal capacity of any station in the New York City Subway: 63 trains per hour, or one train every 57 seconds, although the station currently operates at a far lower throughput (only 20 trains per hour during peak hours). Terminating trains enter on one of the two northbound tracks, then relay to one of the two levels—the upper level if coming from the express track, or the lower level if coming from the local track. They then return on the corresponding track on the southbound side. The few Etrains that begin here always leave from the express track and run express along Hillside Avenue; F trains may leave from either track, switching to the local track north of 169th Street if necessary.

[realizm]

I saw that citation before. On that one I dont agree with how the source article was written. It's impossible to depart a trains every 57 seconds even with CBTC technology let alone a standard fixed block signal system. Even as in Moscow a train can be set to 1 minute headways, to dispatch a train from a terminal in less then 60 seconds? Not conviced about the accuracy of that one.