What does removing switches do?

[Quill Depot]

Reading through threads I've found that many switches were removed throughout time, such as the one at Rector Street . Why were these removed? Does it allow trains to move faster? Less delays? Thanks

[MTA Dude]

Reading through threads I've found that many switches were removed throughout time, such as the one at Rector Street . Why were these removed? Does it allow trains to move faster? Less delays? Thanks

 

Maybe maintanence issues? It costs quite a lot to maintain them so if not using them, remove it.

[P3F]

There was one at Kings Highway that was removed.

[Wallyhorse]

Maybe maintanence issues? It costs quite a lot to maintain them so if not using them, remove it.

I keep them because otherwise, it can be a case of "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish."  Look no further than Sandy.

 

I keep them for operational flexibility.

[bobtehpanda]

Every switch is a possible point of failure.

[Lance]

I keep them because otherwise, it can be a case of "Penny Wise and Pound Foolish."  Look no further than Sandy.

 

I keep them for operational flexibility.

Except when they're never used.

 

Every switch is a possible point of failure.

This precisely.

[Union Tpke]

There were a few removed on the concourse line in about 2005.

[Thekilomoney11]

same thing as freeman street

[MTA Dude]

If the switch at Jackson Av is still there, it should be removed. Or is it the track map?

[RollOver]

If the switch at Jackson Av is still there, it should be removed. Or is it the track map?

 

The New York City Subway track map at www.nycsubway.org has a few errors, but it's still overall correct as a whole though.

[MTA Dude]

The New York City Subway track map at www.nycsubway.org has a few errors, but it's still overall correct as a whole though.

 

I'm using a very accurate track map not from nycsubway.org, but someplace else and it's a good track map. It shows the switch there.

[Trainmaster5]

same thing as freeman street

Wallyhorse, Lance, and bobtehpanda all hit the target regarding the Freeman Street interlocking. Each person touched on a part of the argument about that location. The track and the signal departments didn't want the expense of maintaining the components at Freeman Street because the switches were rarely used any more. We in RTO liked the added flexibility those switches provided on the lower WPR line. I have been involved in G.O.s where n/b service terminated at Freeman St and used those switches to relay for s/b service. Bus service was provided from Freeman St to East 180th St in that case. With the removal of those switches any G.O. in that area means that bus service must be provided from 149th St at the Concourse or Third Avenue instead. The longer distance involved means more buses, more fuel, and more overtime for the Surface Department instead. I don't know the costs of maintaining the Freeman interlocking compared to costs to the Surface Division but I know from an RTO standpoint we hated to lose the flexibility that was there before the switch removal. For example a stalled train at East Tremont or 174th St n/b local track with the old Freeman interlocking meant bypassing the stall from Freeman St n/b but without those switches n/b trains must run express from  south of Jackson Avenue screwing the riders from Jackson Avenue to East 180th St. IIRC the financial side trumped the flexibility argument in the end.Taking it even further the will spend the money with either RTO or Surface being charged. In one pocket or the other. Same difference, IMO. Carry on.

[MHV9218]

Wallyhorse, Lance, and bobtehpanda all hit the target regarding the Freeman Street interlocking. Each person touched on a part of the argument about that location. The track and the signal departments didn't want the expense of maintaining the components at Freeman Street because the switches were rarely used any more. We in RTO liked the added flexibility those switches provided on the lower WPR line. I have been involved in G.O.s where n/b service terminated at Freeman St and used those switches to relay for s/b service. Bus service was provided from Freeman St to East 180th St in that case. With the removal of those switches any G.O. in that area means that bus service must be provided from 149th St at the Concourse or Third Avenue instead. The longer distance involved means more buses, more fuel, and more overtime for the Surface Department instead. I don't know the costs of maintaining the Freeman interlocking compared to costs to the Surface Division but I know from an RTO standpoint we hated to lose the flexibility that was there before the switch removal. For example a stalled train at East Tremont or 174th St n/b local track with the old Freeman interlocking meant bypassing the stall from Freeman St n/b but without those switches n/b trains must run express from  south of Jackson Avenue screwing the riders from Jackson Avenue to East 180th St. IIRC the financial side trumped the flexibility argument in the end.Taking it even further the will spend the money with either RTO or Surface being charged. In one pocket or the other. Same difference, IMO. Carry on.

 

And this is a consistent theme with the MTA--the original system was a far more convenient and flexible animal than we have today, as any of the dozens of closed passageways at IRT stations will make evident. Not to mention, the long, sweeping corridors that used to connect the Midtown stations but cost too much to keep safe during the 1980s. Or many of the closed entrances, exits, etc.

[bobtehpanda]

And this is a consistent theme with the MTA--the original system was a far more convenient and flexible animal than we have today, as any of the dozens of closed passageways at IRT stations will make evident. Not to mention, the long, sweeping corridors that used to connect the Midtown stations but cost too much to keep safe during the 1980s. Or many of the closed entrances, exits, etc.

 

The system is incredibly overengineered. This is both its main advantage and its fatal flaw; the system is still incredibly convenient, but at the same time incredibly expensive to upkeep in its current condition. Add the fact that the system runs 24/7 and quite frankly it's a miracle the MTA keeps itself together, let alone managing to slowly pull the system into the 21st century.

 

A good deal of MTA history also has to do with being the first mover, with generally disastrous consequences. The MTA was first to have underground "cities" like the Rockefeller Center complex, which managed to survive because the passageways to/from it had retail and eyes on the street at all times, so to speak, but the long transfer passageways that were closed didn't learn from this innovation.

[pjbr40]

I'm using a very accurate track map not from nycsubway.org, but someplace else and it's a good track map. It shows the switch there.

nycsubway.org us up to date on their website

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/detail-soferry.png

[Sparen of Iria]

nycsubway.org us up to date on their website

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/detail-soferry.png

 

The detail maps are always from the larger maps. On the larger map, it shows the switch that has been since removed at Rector. Additionally, the detail cutout doesn't show Rector street (IRT) at all and the top of the image is below where the switch would have been regardless

[Fresh Pond]

The detail maps are always from the larger maps. On the larger map, it shows the switch that has been since removed at Rector. Additionally, the detail cutout doesn't show Rector street (IRT) at all and the top of the image is below where the switch would have been regardless

I have a track map book (Tracks of the New York City Subway 2013 edition by Peter Dougherty), and it shows the Rector St crossover removed

[Sparen of Iria]

I just wish NYCsubway.org was kept up to date...

[Lance]

Give the man a break. It's a big site and the portions that get the most views do get updated on a decent basis.

[Union Tpke]

I just wish NYCsubway.org was kept up to date...

if you want to help tell peter dougherty.

He would appreciate your help

 

 

Online maps are located at

http://www.nycsubway.org/maps/track.html

Here you will find colour versions of the track maps on which the printed book is based. In 1997 I changed data file formats in order to make the book more easily editable. Unfortunately, it made making changes to these free colour maps very difficult.Consequently I have not been able to update these in several years, since that would mean redrawing almost the entire system from scratch--something for which I don't presently have the time. 

A colour line indicates that a revenue-service (passenger) train uses a specific track, while a black line indicates a track in service but not normally used in passenger service. Grey lines denote abandoned tracks or platforms. Colours used are based on line colours used in the present-day official map from the MTA. For example, green is the east-side IRT, red is the west side IRT, Brown is the Nassau St./ Broadway (Brooklyn) line, yellow is the Manhattan Broadway line, etc.

These online maps are colourized version of the original scans I made in 1995 and will probably stay much as they are now--errors and all--for a while yet. I have recently updated many of the Manhattan and Brooklyn maps to reflect the changes brought about by the Manhattan Bridge flip in July, 2001. Additionally, I've added the 63rd St. connector to the Queens maps. If you're interested in working with me in updating this free site, please drop me an e-mail. Any and all help would be most welcomed!

http://nyctrackbook.com/online.html

[SubwayGuy]

If you want the updated maps, just buy Pete Dougherty's latest book. It's not that expensive anyway, and you'd be supporting a good cause.

[RTOMan]

Wallyhorse, Lance, and bobtehpanda all hit the target regarding the Freeman Street interlocking. Each person touched on a part of the argument about that location. The track and the signal departments didn't want the expense of maintaining the components at Freeman Street because the switches were rarely used any more. We in RTO liked the added flexibility those switches provided on the lower WPR line. I have been involved in G.O.s where n/b service terminated at Freeman St and used those switches to relay for s/b service. Bus service was provided from Freeman St to East 180th St in that case. With the removal of those switches any G.O. in that area means that bus service must be provided from 149th St at the Concourse or Third Avenue instead. The longer distance involved means more buses, more fuel, and more overtime for the Surface Department instead. I don't know the costs of maintaining the Freeman interlocking compared to costs to the Surface Division but I know from an RTO standpoint we hated to lose the flexibility that was there before the switch removal. For example a stalled train at East Tremont or 174th St n/b local track with the old Freeman interlocking meant bypassing the stall from Freeman St n/b but without those switches n/b trains must run express from south of Jackson Avenue screwing the riders from Jackson Avenue to East 180th St. IIRC the financial side trumped the flexibility argument in the end.Taking it even further the will spend the money with either RTO or Surface being charged. In one pocket or the other. Same difference, IMO. Carry on.

 

Heck even I remember the freeman street interlocking there was one or two GOs when I started in 2001 in the A Div... Then they started the re doing of the signals along that line and those switches went bye bye.....

[CenSin]

Maybe maintanence issues? It costs quite a lot to maintain them so if not using them, remove it.

There are plenty of switches that appear to never be used, yet are just there. They are usually seen lacking the luster of the active rails. Those switches at 62 Street on the West End line… I can't remember them ever being used in my life. And then there's that one switch on the northbound track south of Bay 50 Street that stopped getting used completely after a while. reroutes skipping Bay 50 Street always use the switch north of the station now, yet I positively remember that switch being renewed during track work many years ago.

[CenSin]

Wallyhorse, Lance, and bobtehpanda all hit the target regarding the Freeman Street interlocking. Each person touched on a part of the argument about that location. The track and the signal departments didn't want the expense of maintaining the components at Freeman Street because the switches were rarely used any more. We in RTO liked the added flexibility those switches provided on the lower WPR line. I have been involved in G.O.s where n/b service terminated at Freeman St and used those switches to relay for s/b service. Bus service was provided from Freeman St to East 180th St in that case. With the removal of those switches any G.O. in that area means that bus service must be provided from 149th St at the Concourse or Third Avenue instead. The longer distance involved means more buses, more fuel, and more overtime for the Surface Department instead. I don't know the costs of maintaining the Freeman interlocking compared to costs to the Surface Division but I know from an RTO standpoint we hated to lose the flexibility that was there before the switch removal. For example a stalled train at East Tremont or 174th St n/b local track with the old Freeman interlocking meant bypassing the stall from Freeman St n/b but without those switches n/b trains must run express from  south of Jackson Avenue screwing the riders from Jackson Avenue to East 180th St. IIRC the financial side trumped the flexibility argument in the end.Taking it even further the will spend the money with either RTO or Surface being charged. In one pocket or the other. Same difference, IMO. Carry on.

Yet, they kept the one just north of Jackson Street connecting the southbound local track to the express track. It's not a very handy place to have the switch in my opinion, especially since the express track ends just south of that station. You've gotta wonder what the higher-ups were thinking.

[SubwayGuy]

There are plenty of switches that appear to never be used, yet are just there. They are usually seen lacking the luster of the active rails. Those switches at 62 Street on the West End line… I can't remember them ever being used in my life. And then there's that one switch on the northbound track south of Bay 50 Street that stopped getting used completely after a while. reroutes skipping Bay 50 Street always use the switch north of the station now, yet I positively remember that switch being renewed during track work many years ago.

 

They still use those. A train will get rerouted down the middle from 62nd if it needs to run around a service disruption. It's also possible to turn a train there, but you'll rarely see that.

 

Both Bay 50th switches south of the station are used too, although rarely, to put a train up the middle if it has to run around something, or to bring a train into CI Yard.

Yet, they kept the one just north of Jackson Street connecting the southbound local track to the express track. It's not a very handy place to have the switch in my opinion, especially since the express track ends just south of that station. You've gotta wonder what the higher-ups were thinking.

 

It's to turn work trains in the middle at Jackson Avenue back north if need be, without requiring them to make the move on the local tracks, which would potentialy delay passenger service.