Running the (2) via the (5) line

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So apparently last night there were signal problems on the 7th Avenue line.  Seems like every Monday there's a problem with that line...    What I didn't get was that the seemed to be running fairly well, but service was curtailed significantly, which is what more people needed.  During rush hour they were running trains every 17 - 20 minutes and suggesting that people use the as an alternative, even though the only runs to 148th street. Some trains were running via the Lexington Avenue line, which doesn't make sense seeing how congested the Lexington Avenue line is already with the and .  So here are my questions:

 

Do they run fewer trains when they have to run some trains via the Lexington Avenue line? I ask this because if the are at maximum capacity, having some trains run as trains up to 149th street would just exacerbate an already difficult situation wouldn't it?  With the already running so poorly on 7th Avenue, I have a hard time understanding how sending it on the Lex line solves the problem when there are signal problems?  Is more train service run or how does that work?  Also I noticed that they had some trains running on the line later on from 96th street to Times Square.  What was up with that? 

[Lance]

If I'm not mistaken, you were probably caught up in two dueling issues on the IRT: 1) the signal problems at Clark St, which forced uptown 2 trains up Lexington Avenue and 2) the fire activity at 125 St/Lexington, which sent downtown 5 trains down 7th Avenue.

 

As for how these particular reroutes are handled, I'd assume it's dependent on the time of day and the circumstances. Since this happened during the PM rush and neither Dyre Av, 241 St or Flatbush Av have storage capabilities, I doubt they can really hold the trains at the terminals for too long without causing more delays. And since the problem at Clark St was ongoing for most of the day, it probably wouldn't have mattered much. Regardless, the trains are rerouted this way (at least on the 2 and 5) because it's the easiest solution to keep both lines running as smoothly as possible.

[Tokkemon]

Its a redundancy construction built into the IRT. It is the same as the IND's 6th and 8th Avenue lines paralleling each other. If there's a problem in one tunnel the first option is to switch to local tracks. When this isn't an option (like in downtown where all the lines are only two-tracks) then the second option is to route through the alternate tube. This happens occasionally when there's a problem between Canal St and Jay St on the and they have to reroute the to the until West 4 St. 

 

Also, passenger demand is dynamic, and trains can get rerouted to meet that demand even if the "expected" service pattern isn't best. That's what happens when an Express goes local or vice versa. Usually its caused by delays somewhere and that causes congestion at specific parts of the line, so more trains are sent that way to deal with the congestion. 

The only thing I wish New York would do is a super-express diversion where trains (for example) will skip Canal, 14th, 34th, etc. and high-tail it up the tube when there's miles of free space in the track to balance out the line. I hate it when trains get bunched up one after the other because of a slower train at the front of the pack. I'm sure there's reasons for not doing this such as excessive passenger movements or diminishing returns. Any thoughts on this? 

[TeeLow]

The only thing I wish New York would do is a super-express diversion where trains (for example) will skip Canal, 14th, 34th, etc. and high-tail it up the tube when there's miles of free space in the track to balance out the line. I hate it when trains get bunched up one after the other because of a slower train at the front of the pack. I'm sure there's reasons for not doing this such as excessive passenger movements or diminishing returns. Any thoughts on this? 

It's a cool concept but unless you plan to hold the at Canal to give the clearance priority NB I can't see any other way you could divert around a delay. Same with the SB. Holding the at 7th Ave, holding the and/or N/O the switch outside Columbus Circle, allowing the to cross in front then race down to Canal non stop then slow to switch back to the express tracks...that's a logistical nightmare, particularly during the rush. Very impractical.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intention.

[cl94]

It's a cool concept but unless you plan to hold the at Canal to give the clearance priority NB I can't see any other way you could divert around a delay. Same with the SB. Holding the at 7th Ave, holding the and/or N/O the switch outside Columbus Circle, allowing the to cross in front then race down to Canal non stop then slow to switch back to the express tracks...that's a logistical nightmare, particularly during the rush. Very impractical.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your intention.

 

Biggest problem here is the lack of switches on 8th Avenue. There is no way for a train to switch between local and express between north of 59th Street and south of Canal. The runs at too high a frequency for there to be enough service gaps. Even if they held an at 7th Avenue (which would clog up the , there would still be 2-3 other trains on the local track.

[bobtehpanda]

Its a redundancy construction built into the IRT. It is the same as the IND's 6th and 8th Avenue lines paralleling each other. If there's a problem in one tunnel the first option is to switch to local tracks. When this isn't an option (like in downtown where all the lines are only two-tracks) then the second option is to route through the alternate tube. This happens occasionally when there's a problem between Canal St and Jay St on the and they have to reroute the to the until West 4 St. 

 

Also, passenger demand is dynamic, and trains can get rerouted to meet that demand even if the "expected" service pattern isn't best. That's what happens when an Express goes local or vice versa. Usually its caused by delays somewhere and that causes congestion at specific parts of the line, so more trains are sent that way to deal with the congestion. 

 

The only thing I wish New York would do is a super-express diversion where trains (for example) will skip Canal, 14th, 34th, etc. and high-tail it up the tube when there's miles of free space in the track to balance out the line. I hate it when trains get bunched up one after the other because of a slower train at the front of the pack. I'm sure there's reasons for not doing this such as excessive passenger movements or diminishing returns. Any thoughts on this? 

 

People already complain about the skipping stops during delays (which is why it happens a lot less often than it used to), because you've then got people at skipped stations waiting for two or three trains in the name of "maintaining headways."

[Tokkemon]

Headways for 1,000 people are more important than a couple dozen inconvenienced in my book. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If I'm not mistaken, you were probably caught up in two dueling issues on the IRT: 1) the signal problems at Clark St, which forced uptown 2 trains up Lexington Avenue and 2) the fire activity at 125 St/Lexington, which sent downtown 5 trains down 7th Avenue.

 

As for how these particular reroutes are handled, I'd assume it's dependent on the time of day and the circumstances. Since this happened during the PM rush and neither Dyre Av, 241 St or Flatbush Av have storage capabilities, I doubt they can really hold the trains at the terminals for too long without causing more delays. And since the problem at Clark St was ongoing for most of the day, it probably wouldn't have mattered much. Regardless, the trains are rerouted this way (at least on the 2 and 5) because it's the easiest solution to keep both lines running as smoothly as possible.

So then how is service impacted on the when trains are re-routed via the Lex line?  I've been on re-routed trains via the Lex line and they're usually not too packed because people are confused.  People on the 7th Avenue line though seemed shocked by the long waits for the , as was I.

[TeeLow]

Biggest problem here is the lack of switches on 8th Avenue. There is no way for a train to switch between local and express between north of 59th Street and south of Canal. The runs at too high a frequency for there to be enough service gaps. Even if they held an at 7th Avenue (which would clog up the , there would still be 2-3 other trains on the local track.

Exactly. Logistical nightmare.

[Juelz4309]

I dont know to be honest..the headways on the 2 these days mainly during PEAK rush hours is rediculous.. ive gotten off a 2 (or a 5 If im lucky) at 225 st and the next 2 is 15 minutes or better away at 6pm...with a """5"""behind it at 21 minutes...but mind you i just got kicked off the "nereid" ave 5 at gun hill... which i hear goin up the exp on the walk home smh.....how is it they can run the "E" at its HIGH frequency and it shares trackage with the "F" or the 6 or even the 4...but the 2 at times comes in great bunches...no train for 20 plus minutes then 4 trains back to back...Now some 5s has went local afta 180 to 238.when theres a gap....sometimes....today for instance..like clockwork my 238 "5" pulls into 180 with a 2...I already knew...sure nuff...AFTER they let the 2 leave We went exp to Gun hill to the utter dismay of those below gun hill...lucky we left about a couple minutes after and cuaght up with that 2 around allerton...so I actually dont mind the exp run AS LONG as theres a 2 bet 180-gun hill..or even better just run the 5s behind the 2 as advertised so to avoid a delay at 238..those 5s make a diffrence and I just dont know whats goin on with the 2..I actually work on the west side but go to the eastside for the 5 to avoid the chaos that is the 2 line...

[Juelz4309]

So apparently last night there were signal problems on the 7th Avenue line.  Seems like every Monday there's a problem with that line...    What I didn't get was that the seemed to be running fairly well, but service was curtailed significantly, which is what more people needed.  During rush hour they were running trains every 17 - 20 minutes and suggesting that people use the as an alternative, even though the only runs to 148th street. Some trains were running via the Lexington Avenue line, which doesn't make sense seeing how congested the Lexington Avenue line is already with the and .  So here are my questions:

 

Do they run fewer trains when they have to run some trains via the Lexington Avenue line? I ask this because if the are at maximum capacity, having some trains run as trains up to 149th street would just exacerbate an already difficult situation wouldn't it?  With the already running so poorly on 7th Avenue, I have a hard time understanding how sending it on the Lex line solves the problem when there are signal problems?  Is more train service run or how does that work?  Also I noticed that they had some trains running on the line later on from 96th street to Times Square.  What was up with that? 

Im not sure about the PM Rush becuase the trains are already out n about but I can say if this issue wouldve arose in the early pre AM rush and the 2 is rerouted down lex they definitely run less 5s..becuase my 5s from wpr is always the first to go when the westside gets jammed....not sure why they run the 3s local though...they run enuff 1s to cover itself...so one could imagine with little to no express service on 7th ave it must be jus crazy..

[Trainmaster5]

So then how is service impacted on the when trains are re-routed via the Lex line?  I've been on re-routed trains via the Lex line and they're usually not too packed because people are confused.  People on the 7th Avenue line though seemed shocked by the long waits for the , as was I.

Normally when the operates on the Lexington line s/b the Dyre terminal will be told to drop a trip and go on a modified (flex) schedule to allow for the additional service to blend in. If the delays on 7th Avenue are severe enough during rush hours then the Woodlawn terminal would be asked to run on a modified schedule also. If the problem is n/b then the southern , , and terminals would run the flex schedules until the problem clears up. Obviously the rush hour problems are worse because all available trains are already on the road so a simple problem can take hours before things are cleared up and normal service is resumed. The older IRT system doesn't have the re-routing flexibility that the IND, BMT, or IND-BMT combo does so the problems are magnified to a greater extent. Carry on.

[RTOMan]

 

So then how is service impacted on the when trains are re-routed via the Lex line?  I've been on re-routed trains via the Lex line and they're usually not too packed because people are confused.  People on the 7th Avenue line though seemed shocked by the long waits for the , as was I.

 

 

Normally when the operates on the Lexington line s/b the Dyre terminal will be told to drop a trip and go on a modified (flex) schedule to allow for the additional service to blend in. If the delays on 7th Avenue are severe enough during rush hours then the Woodlawn terminal would be asked to run on a modified schedule also. If the problem is n/b then the southern , , and terminals would run the flex schedules until the problem clears up. Obviously the rush hour problems are worse because all available trains are already on the road so a simple problem can take hours before things are cleared up and normal service is resumed. The older IRT system doesn't have the re-routing flexibility that the IND, BMT, or IND-BMT combo does so the problems are magnified to a greater extent. Carry on.

 

That's just part of the problem over in Skynet Land heh....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Normally when the operates on the Lexington line s/b the Dyre terminal will be told to drop a trip and go on a modified (flex) schedule to allow for the additional service to blend in. If the delays on 7th Avenue are severe enough during rush hours then the Woodlawn terminal would be asked to run on a modified schedule also. If the problem is n/b then the southern , , and terminals would run the flex schedules until the problem clears up. Obviously the rush hour problems are worse because all available trains are already on the road so a simple problem can take hours before things are cleared up and normal service is resumed. The older IRT system doesn't have the re-routing flexibility that the IND, BMT, or IND-BMT combo does so the problems are magnified to a greater extent. Carry on.

Here's what I'm perplexed by though... When the is sent via the Lex line, do they have to cut back on 's and why is it that the 's have to be sent via the Lex line to begin with when a signal problems occur? I guess it's just odd to me that they re-direct the when more people need the than the .  Also, what causes the to run in the Bronx?  I was in Pelham Parkway a few weeks ago and saw a few trains, though I'm not sure if they were in service or not, but something must've been up because I saw quite a few of them as I was waiting for the express bus coming from a tutoring session.

[RollOver]

Also, what causes the to run in the Bronx?  I was in Pelham Parkway a few weeks ago and saw a few trains, though I'm not sure if they were in service or not, but something must've been up because I saw quite a few of them as I was waiting for the express bus coming from a tutoring session.

 

If your question is about why the runs NIS in the Bronx, here's the answer: some of the R62s go to 239th Street for car wash. Neither Livonia nor Lenox yards have a car wash.

[Lance]

@Via G: Regarding the first part of your post, as has been said before, it depends on the situation. For most problems, it's better to hold trains at their terminals or short turn them when possible rather than try to run normal-ish service which would just add to the delays due to whatever incident that's going on. As to why the 2 is rerouted over to Lexington Ave (and why the 5's sent to 7th Ave as well) is to maintain some semblance of normal service in the Bronx and Brooklyn. There's no need to have all of the 2 and 5 lines affected if it can otherwise be avoided.

 

The second part of your question has already been answered by RollOver..., so there's no need to add anything there.

[Jsunflyguy]

Exactly. Logistical nightmare.

Trains could also be held at 50th which is separate from the platforms so it wouldn't back up unless there was an extreme delay, the doesn't run with great frequency in order to cause a big concern about slowing them down. The real fall is that stacking so many trains will put a strain when WTC has to turn 5 in a row.

[TeeLow]

Trains could also be held at 50th which is separate from the platforms so it wouldn't back up unless there was an extreme delay, the doesn't run with great frequency in order to cause a big concern about slowing them down. The real fall is that stacking so many trains will put a strain when WTC has to turn 5 in a row.

Yeah, that would allow two additional trains into the queue. Forgot about that upper/lower level thang at 50th, but it's still a delay any way you look at it. 's & 's share the same track on 8th and when back logged S/B 's are holding up 's it fusses with the on 6th. N/B the still needs a hold at Canal so the is clear to 59th. Hell, I don't think even Brown could handle those kind of logistical noodle knots.

[FamousNYLover]

Most riders on either Lexington Av or 7th Av-Broadway doesn't notice difference.

gets heavily used along Lexington Av area and gets heavily used in 34th St-96th St area when service disruption happens.

 

One time during G.O via , most riders didn't notice this was when it was on station.

[BowlingGreen]

The problem with the running on the Lexington ave line is that 4&5 trains are held up, then 2 trains seem to always be crowded during these times.

 

It was a terrible Friday during rush hour when there was a investigation at Flatbush Avenue, for some reason, they sent 2 trains on the lex Av line. After a hour of waiting for a Eastchester bound 5, they told me the train I was on was no longer in service (2 train). I began to see 5 trains from seventh ave. What's up with that?