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.
INDman

Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

? How are the Astoria and SAS slow? Those lines are mostly straight trackage with little to no timers. I take it you never ridden any of the BMT Broadway lines between Canal and DeKelb ... Now that's slow!

SAS is not slow, but the 60th St tunnel line between 57 St-7 Av and 5 Av-59 St is

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Yeah about that:

There is another way to resolve the slow issues. Currently, the train capacity constraints on the Broadway Line are due to the bottlenecks on the local tracks between 34th Street-Herald Square and the 60th Street Tunnel connection. Here, the (N) moves to the local tracks from the express tracks and shares the local tracks with the (R) and (W) from Lower Manhattan. 5 stops and a East River tunnel crossing later, the (R) splits from the (N) and (W) to head up the Queens Blvd Line, while the (N) and (W) go to Astoria (the (W) is scheduled as a branch of the (N) route). As a result of this, all three services run at a lousy 8 trains per hour. While this is fine on trunk lines, the branches run at lower frequencies. In addition, because of the slow switches at 34th Street, there are delays and slowdowns on the entire Broadway and Astoria Line on both local and express tracks.

A simple solution for this is to simply reroute the (N) from Astoria-Ditmars to 96th Street with the (Q), never merging with other lines. This will result in faster service on Astoria and Broadway due to the lack of switching. To replace the (N) to Astoria, (W) service would be increased, which would be possible by releasing some cars from (N) service to (W) service, which will now have its own staff schedule and train crews. The end-goal is to reroute the (R) to Astoria and taking all Broadway service off Queens Blvd, but that's another story. However, with this one change, the (R) will now have one less merge to deal with, improving efficiency a bit. Virtually everyone on the Astoria Line is going as far as 34th Street-Herald Sq, so nothing is lost.

Line capacity on each subway line is not equal due to a variety of factors. This includes power constraints, track geography, terminal constraints (middle track at Whitehall). With all that in mind, and for simplicity, lets say that track capacity with the existing signals tops out at 24 trains per hour, or one train every 2.5 minutes. This is actually impressive train throughput, even though presently, some lines go past that. With this, all 4 Broadway services would operate at 12 trains per hour. Since there would be two services per track the whole way, both would run 24 trains, roughly the same as current local service between 60th and 34th, and a significant improvement elsewhere. Turning 12 trains is possible on the Whitehall middle track, but operations resiliency does appear to be low. However, some policy changes (which should be applied system-wide) should be able to mitigate this. I would also look into modifying operations at the Gold Street and DeKalb track junctions to better handle the increased service.

Again, the only car swaps needed would be to reassign some cars from the (N) route to the (W) route, since the (N) would be operating a shorter route. All in all, its as if you are getting faster and more frequent service on the Astoria Line and Broadway Line for free. It's totally more effective and efficient than CBTC, which would cost millions of dollars and take time to install. This is all the matter of scheduling trains at nearly no additional cost.

And that my friends is how to fix the Broadway Line.

If you split the (R) from Queens Blvd you would need to increase service on the (M) or create another local service that serves 63 St

Rerouting the (N) to 96 St will only subtract 2 trains max from the current requirement and the (W) would need at least an extra 15 train sets to replace service in Astoria

Edited by darkstar8983
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

SAS is not slow, but the 60th St tunnel line between 57 St-7 Av and 5 Av-59 St is

Yeah, that part is slow. But when he said Astoria line I assumed he was talking about from Queensboro Plaza to Astoria-Ditmars.

Edited by trainfan22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

The rollsigns are heavy and if the T/O scrolling through the signs stumbles upon the Diamond (Q) first, they'll just leave it that. Close enough lol, or so I heard..

 

Some (Q) trains are via Sea Beach put ins. That’s why. I know of two train operators who LIKE to sign up the train as a Diamond (Q) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

If you split the (R) from Queens Blvd you would need to increase service on the (M) or create another local service that serves 63 St

 

For the purposes of this response, I did not propose removing the (R) from Astoria. However, a limiting factor for this is not only the need for new facilities, but also how to rearrange service on Queens Blvd and 8th Avenue along the existing tracks. Without a brand new subway in Queens, there appears to be no good way to deinterline Queens Blvd. Therefore, I was lead to believe that we should Inter Line to deinterline. What I imagine seeing is 24 trains along 53rd Street to 8th Avenue local and 24 trains along 63rd Street to/from 6th Avenue local. They would meet at the 63rd Street junction at 36th Street, where they would split into 12 8th Avenue trains to the express tracks and 12 8th Avenue trains to the local tracks, along with 12 6th Avenue trains to the express tracks and 12 6th Avenue trains to the local tracks. In this case, the (E) and new (K) route would go via 53rd Street and the (F) and rerouted (M) train take the 63rd Street tunnel. At the connection, the (E) and (F) take the express tracks and the (K) and (M) take the local tracks. This allows for passengers at stations between Long Island City and Kew Gardens/Briarwood would have one-seat rides to both 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue, since the (K) and the (M) would be serving the local tracks. I know you will be mortified when you will find out that my plan cuts combined (E) and (F) service from 30 trains per hour to 24 trains per hour, and reallocating those 6 trains to the (K) and (M) (current (E)(F) combined service is 30 trains per hour and current (M)(R) combined service is 18 trains per hour, for a total of 48 trains per hour). However, it is anticipated that with the (K) providing local service to all of the 53rd Street Tunnel, most folks would be enticed to use the local train directly to their local stop rather than transfer to the overcrowded (E) or (F) (the (M) is a weak line on 53rd Street, as was the (V) before it). The new (M) routing would provide new local service to the 63rd Street and Upper East Side, further enticing riders to switch. For those who may lose service to the Broadway Line, too bad, so sad, find another route . This should possibly reduce crowding on the (E) and (F) to acceptable levels and have some loads balanced.

Now I know people will say that this will create a merging nightmare at 36th Street, but I find this patter better than current service. I also plan to further improve reliability and make room for the (K) on the rest of the network but swapping the (C) and (D) routes so that the (C) would go express from Canal to 145th, then on the concourse to 205th Street while the (D) would be local from 59th Street to 168th Street. This would eliminate the merges at 59th Street, dramatically reducing the effects of the merging delays at 36th Street (currently, a merging delay at 59th Street could delay trains on nearly the entire system. Under my new plans, if there are merging delays at 36th Street, then it would only effect the (E), (F), (K), (M), (J), and (G)). Thats the goal of my plans. In addition, CBTC on Queens Blvd would allow for more wiggle room for these merging activities to happen as trains would be operate closer together (the 24 tph track capacity assumption takes into account merging as well). 

Car assignment changes for these changes to happen should be minimal (for the (M), no changes. I do see the (C) losing a few trains since it’s now express to 205th Street. Actual train assignments would be determined). 

29 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Rerouting the (N) to 96 St will only subtract 2 trains max from the current requirement and the (W) would need at least an extra 15 train sets to replace service in Astoria

I have intended to have the (N) and (W) operate at 12 trains per hour. However, if we could also swap the (R) and (W) terminals so that the (W) goes from Forest Hills to Whitehall and the (R) operates the original route, then maybe we could have enough cars to replace current (N)(W) service with Astoria, even if new Astoria service would operate at 12 trains per hour.

I forgot to add that some cars may have to be transferred from other B division yards, as was done before, though how many cars to be moved would be determined, and we are talking about in the near future, when the fleet is expanded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

If you split the (R) from Queens Blvd you would need to increase service on the (M) or create another local service that serves 63 St

Rerouting the (N) to 96 St will only subtract 2 trains max from the current requirement and the (W) would need at least an extra 15 train sets to replace service in Astoria

Exactly! The point is to be able to run more trains per hour without merging delays and the attendant signal and switch problems that result from them. The current Broadway services are limited due to the (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th Street (or Prince St on weekends) and, to a lesser extent, the (B)(D)(N)(Q) merge at DeKalb. If we get rid of at least one of those choke points, Broadway Line service overall will be much more reliable and trains can run faster and more frequently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what you guys would think about the ancient days at DeKalb. Fourth Ave (R) local, Brighton (QT) local, West End (TT) local  and the Sea Beach (N) , Brighton (Q) and the West End  (T) expresses all passing through DeKalb. Back before the 6th Avenue connection went into effect. I don't recall any complaints about merges back then. This was when the (T) had to cross over to reach the Astoria, QB line tracks heading past 57th-7th weekdays. What's really changed as far as merging ? Just asking. Carry on.

Edited by Trainmaster5
additional thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I agree. The MTA really hates us so they decided "let's try to put CBTC on QBL and piss off rail fans by putting R46s on the (N) and (W) ".

Can you people stop sounding so damned spoiled? It's just a swap. It's just a train. It's just a ride. And don't come at me with the "age" excuse either. 

The MTA wanted to put CBTC on QBL and the sooner it's done the better. This is currently the fastest process and if they waited for the R211s it would not be online by 2021.

If anyone is curious, docs from July 2015 about QBL CBTC starting at page 36:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150906021415if_/http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/150720_1345_CPOC.pdf

That's really the important thing. QBL is the first heavily interlined CBTC line, so the sooner it's successfully fully implemented, the sooner it can be replicated across the system.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If y'all were on top of your board meetings, you would have known this swap was happening when the contract for CBTC installation on trains went out years ago and the number of R160s getting upgrades added up to the number of R160s on the (M) + the number of R160s at both Jamaica and CIY (at the time of award)...

I don't know why this is causing such a big uproar right now.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VIP said:

I know of two train operators who LIKE to sign up the train as a Diamond (Q) 

I personally appreciate that. It reminds me of the real <Q> with its R40s, from way back in 2001-4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the R68/As (N) as a (Q) to 96 St appeared more few months ago?

 

Today, waiting for a (Q) to 72nd St, it says <Q> but the rear says (N)  (It was a (Q) via Sea Beach). Most rollsigns have a (N) from Astoria to 86 St with some empty southern terminals. There were people that asked other passengers if this is a (Q) . The answer is Yes. However, one said that this doesn't like a (Q) to me. 

Edited by Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a R68 (Q) this morning at around 7:50am. Saw it and was pretty shocked. Just gonna say this now if you want 160 shots at CI GET THEM ASAP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, P3F said:

I personally appreciate that. It reminds me of the real <Q> with its R40s, from way back in 2001-4.

I found that service pattern confusing. Like if the (Q) runs express and the <Q> local because of a service change, how are passengers suppose to know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like (6)<6> /(7)<7> / (F)<F> . Circle is Local and Diamond is Express usually during AM and  PM Rush Hours.

 

 

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


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

I found that service pattern confusing. Like if the (Q) runs express and the <Q> local because of a service change, how are passengers suppose to know?

I don't really remember what was done for service changes, but it probably wasn't too different from today where sometimes (B) trains run local or (Q) trains run express. You could still tell the (Q) and <Q> apart, because they didn't share cars. The local had R68s, the express had R40s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm wondering what you guys would think about the ancient days at DeKalb. Fourth Ave (R) local, Brighton (QT) local, West End (TT) local  and the Sea Beach (N) , Brighton (Q) and the West End  (T) expresses all passing through DeKalb. Back before the 6th Avenue connection went into effect. I don't recall any complaints about merges back then. This was when the (T) had to cross over to reach the Astoria, QB line tracks heading past 57th-7th weekdays. What's really changed as far as merging ? Just asking. Carry on.

Broadway and DeKalb would be shitting themselves every hour if that same service patterns were still in use today, completely unchanged from the 1950s/60s. Today’s micromanaging MTA would never trust train crews and dispatchers to be able to handle it. What were train frequencies on each of those lines back then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm wondering what you guys would think about the ancient days at DeKalb. Fourth Ave (R) local, Brighton (QT) local, West End (TT) local  and the Sea Beach (N) , Brighton (Q) and the West End  (T) expresses all passing through DeKalb. Back before the 6th Avenue connection went into effect. I don't recall any complaints about merges back then. This was when the (T) had to cross over to reach the Astoria, QB line tracks heading past 57th-7th weekdays. What's really changed as far as merging ? Just asking. Carry on.

You do realize that the merge delays and capacity losses back then were so bad that the MTA chose to completely rebuild the junction, right? And even then, service did not perform all that well. The 80tph run through in the 1968 pattern got really messy, I'm told, with trains backing up onto the bridge and into Dekalb moreso than even today. 

All that aside, a lot has changed! Signal mods have made the system less resilient, electronic delay reporting has made numbers fudging harder, and people have higher expectations for service. Just sayin'...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 7:00 PM, Coney Island Av said:

3484-85, 3518-19, 3610-11, 3770-71 are currently sitting in Pitkin Yard along with at least two other pairs which i could not identify. 

the cars appear to be intact despite being listed as retired. (unlike 3878-79 which has been OOS for two years) 

Very nice pictures!  I admire the effort extra credit.

If like last time they'll sit with the lights on for up to weeks until getting moved to 207 for processing.  Sometimes the compressors keep running unattended even.

They are only subway cars after all.  Not like they're really alive (as opposed to "live").

Winter of 2009:

I remember one set of Slants was literally FROZEN (and I mean f-r-o-z-e-n, as in ice) into place around Track 43 and was even drawing power as it broke away for the ice lake when departing for its final run to 207.  What an electrical show!!  She was on the barge a couple of weeks later.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coney Island doesn’t have anymore R160 Alstom sets anymore. Just R160B Siemens sets left. 25 sets. Mainly on the (Q) but you’ll see some on the (N) and (W) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Coney Island doesn’t have anymore R160 Alstom sets anymore. Just R160B Siemens sets left. 25 sets. Mainly on the (Q) but you’ll see some on the (N) and (W) 

So a total of 26 10-car trainsets (or 260 cars) have the Siemens motor propulsion system? Sweet. The one that’s still running on the (E) should head back to Coney Island for now, if not permanent.

Always hated the Alstom motor propulsion system. I’ve always been under the impression as to why Kawasaki didn’t include the Siemens motor propulsion system on all of their 66 10-car trainsets (or 660 cars) of their R160Bs.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, VIP said:

Coney Island doesn’t have anymore R160 Alstom sets anymore. Just R160B Siemens sets left. 25 sets. Mainly on the (Q) but you’ll see some on the (N) and (W) 

I can confirm. The last Alstom set I ever saw was 8743-8747 and 8768-8772 on Thursday on the (Q).

Besides those sets, the (Q) has been almost entirely R160 Siemens with a few R46s and R68s thrown in occasionally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to find out when the Siemens Sets are making their way to Jamaica... 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

I can confirm. The last Alstom set I ever saw was 8743-8747 and 8768-8772 on Thursday on the (Q).

Besides those sets, the (Q) has been almost entirely R160 Siemens with a few R46s and R68s thrown in occasionally. 

The reason the (Q) has a few R46s / R68s thrown in is because the (N) still has a few R160s and they’re not letting go. So the (Q) May run all 21 of its assigned trains using R160s but it’s spares are R68s and R46s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

So what’s the update on the amount of R46’s at Jamaica? 
 

18-19 trains left. Mainly, the (R) . 

 

---

 

Also, yesterday, there's 8728-8732 with 8778-8782 on the (Q) while the (N) has 8768-8772 with 8743-8747 in-service. However, that'll change by the end of this month. 

Edited by Calvin
  • Sad 3
  • Upvote 2

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.