Should the MTA Eliminate Express (4) Service During Peak Hours?

[ConcourseExp]

Last week, there was a sick customer at 167 Street and s/b service was delayed for the morning. When my train pulled up to 167 Street, a train, running on the express track, passed the station and had a lot less people than on my train. The worst part was when my train entered 149 Street-Grand Concourse, it stopped on the local track and after that, it kept on going to 125 Street without any problems, or not stopping in the middle of the tunnel, or even staying in the station. It didn't matter whether a train was coming, the t/o went at an average speed like a normal off-peak train would. What I'm trying to say is that, placing the train on the express track from 149 Street to 125 Street should be stopped because it takes up more time and slows down everyone's commute. I think the MTA should just let southbound trains run on the local track at all times; also, waiting at the station for a train to pass, isn't as bad as waiting in the tunnel on a packed track waiting the track to switch. What do you guys think about this?

[MysteriousBtrain]

138th Street is a low ridership station. Not much is missed on the . If it will cause less delays to stay on one track than go shuffling on multiple tracks, I'd say eliminate the skip stop.

[S78 via Hylan]

While the title of this thread is a bit misleading, I believe it was announced that the skips 138th during the peak direction to avoid congestion with the .

[MysteriousBtrain]

While the title of this thread is a bit misleading, I believe it was announced that the skips 138th during the peak direction to avoid congestion with the .

I've been at 138th St during the morning rush, and there isn't really much of a difference on either track. The would stay on the express track for about 3-5 min before leaving the station. 

[RollOver]

Here's the answer to the OP's question:

 

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/45558-should-we-abandon-138gc-yes/page-3?do=findComment&comment=784246

[Via Garibaldi 8]

As someone who has used the to Woodlawn when I missed the express bus or couldn't get Metro-North in time, I think some folks would welcome it skipping even more stops.  It's ridiculous how that train crawls from Mosholu Parkway to the last stop.

[BronxBombers]

The is already horrendous as it is so If the stops at 138 during rush hours, it will eventually delay the since the has to wait for the to pass.

[RollOver]

The 2 is already horrendous as it is so If the 4 stops at 138 during rush hours, it will eventually delay the 2 since the 5 has to wait for the 4 to pass.

 

Right.

 

Also, during the PM rush hours, Woodlawn-bound trains bypasses 138-GC so they aren't delayed by an Eastchester/Nereid-bound already sitting in the station. You never know that could be waiting for another one ahead, which also could be waiting for a Wakefield-bound already sitting at 149-GC lower level (making the stop).

 

Have all trains stop at 138 St during both AM and PM rushes, there would be more delays around the area than they are now.

[Daniel The Cool]

As someone who has used the to Woodlawn when I missed the express bus or couldn't get Metro-North in time, I think some folks would welcome it skipping even more stops. It's ridiculous how that train crawls from Mosholu Parkway to the last stop.

They did a pilot program on it back in 2009

[Q43 Floral Park]

They did a pilot program on it back in 2009

 

It had a lot of issues: it skipped major stops north of Burnside, and ran infrequently which then caused the local runs trying to switch at 149 to have issues. so it was emptier at 125 but the other trains still had crowds (read: it benefitted manhattan passengers more than bronx riders). 

 

Skipping 138 St isn't plaguing the as bad as the N/B trains that run local to 167, express to Burnside then dropout.

 

They seem deadset on avoiding a consistent express service.  

a) trains stopping at 125-149-Burnside-then local to Woodlawn with trains stopping at 125-149-then local to Burnside and drop

b) Express/Locals both to Woodlawn but the express trains run local after Burnside

[SubwayGuy]

It had a lot of issues: it skipped major stops north of Burnside, and ran infrequently which then caused the local runs trying to switch at 149 to have issues. so it was emptier at 125 but the other trains still had crowds (read: it benefitted manhattan passengers more than bronx riders). 

 

Skipping 138 St isn't plaguing the as bad as the N/B trains that run local to 167, express to Burnside then dropout.

 

It's not about express service at all.

 

Dropping 4's out at Burnside is to provide a logical place to terminate service to avoid congestion at Woodlawn. 2 factors:

-Frequent 4 train service, and time needed to clean out the layups (there are plenty of trains which lay up from Woodlawn too)

-The moves into Mosholu or (for the handful of 4's that go there) Concourse Yard are both reverse moves. So layups can become delayed, you can't just send a whole bunch in a row, because you have to wait for switchmen to change ends at Bed Park/Kingsbridge middle to go into the respective yards. They also have to have a window where there is no southbound service, as making the move into the yard requires utilizing the southbound local track to reach the yard leads.

 

4 trains that drop out at Burnside can proceed north toward the yard without delaying other service, layups, or the terminal, and have all the time and space they need to sit, to even accommodate more Woodlawn layups getting to the yard first if need be due to congestion.

 

So why have the Burnside dropouts go express? Simple. So they don't plug the regular northbound 4 service when they're being checked for passengers before leaving Burnside for the yard.

[Daniel The Cool]

It's not about express service at all.

 

Dropping 4's out at Burnside is to provide a logical place to terminate service to avoid congestion at Woodlawn. 2 factors:

-Frequent 4 train service, and time needed to clean out the layups (there are plenty of trains which lay up from Woodlawn too)

-The moves into Mosholu or (for the handful of 4's that go there) Concourse Yard are both reverse moves. So layups can become delayed, you can't just send a whole bunch in a row, because you have to wait for switchmen to change ends at Bed Park/Kingsbridge middle to go into the respective yards. They also have to have a window where there is no southbound service, as making the move into the yard requires utilizing the southbound local track to reach the yard leads.

 

4 trains that drop out at Burnside can proceed north toward the yard without delaying other service, layups, or the terminal, and have all the time and space they need to sit, to even accommodate more Woodlawn layups getting to the yard first if need be due to congestion.

 

So why have the Burnside dropouts go express? Simple. So they don't plug the regular northbound 4 service when they're being checked for passengers before leaving Burnside for the yard.

He was talking about the Pilot Program back in 2009

[Via Garibaldi 8]

It's not about express service at all.

 

Dropping 4's out at Burnside is to provide a logical place to terminate service to avoid congestion at Woodlawn. 2 factors:

-Frequent 4 train service, and time needed to clean out the layups (there are plenty of trains which lay up from Woodlawn too)

-The moves into Mosholu or (for the handful of 4's that go there) Concourse Yard are both reverse moves. So layups can become delayed, you can't just send a whole bunch in a row, because you have to wait for switchmen to change ends at Bed Park/Kingsbridge middle to go into the respective yards. They also have to have a window where there is no southbound service, as making the move into the yard requires utilizing the southbound local track to reach the yard leads.

 

4 trains that drop out at Burnside can proceed north toward the yard without delaying other service, layups, or the terminal, and have all the time and space they need to sit, to even accommodate more Woodlawn layups getting to the yard first if need be due to congestion.

 

So why have the Burnside dropouts go express? Simple. So they don't plug the regular northbound 4 service when they're being checked for passengers before leaving Burnside for the yard.

Heh, well they should have more of them terminating at Burnside or something because it's ridiculous how long it takes for those trains to leave out of "Woodlawn" (Norwood).  I don't know how those people put up with the waits at those last few stops to reach the terminal, but it's insane.  I think I did it twice and got picked up from the station on my way to Westchester just to avoid starting later for my tutoring session, but after that I always had one of the parents pick me up from the BxM4 express bus or from the Metro-North station.  No way in hell would I deal with that train regularly.  I also notice that those express trains to Woodlawn are often delayed quite a bit in terms of the arrival to say Grand Central and their arrival to Woodlawn.

[I Run Trains]

The is already horrendous as it is so If the stops at 138 during rush hours, it will eventually delay the since the has to wait for the to pass.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!! That is the reason Why! Not to tie up the

[jon2305]

Normaly, from what I've constantly seen specially in P.M. rush hour is the enter 149th St before the as the goes through the curves and waits for the to onload the passengers at the station and since the goes express afterwards catching up with the outside to E 180th St it sort of keeps a even level of service, but theres also good days & bad days (emphasis on bad days on the & lines. Although at times Neried Ave bound (5)'s in specific provides local service to make up for the long arriving . I rembember being at Simpson St and seeing four expresses back-to-back with customers on the northbound side waiting and the look on thier faces is priceless.

[Iv4BSide]

I for one actually support a full retool of the 4 to make it similar to the 6 where it runs Local in the Bronx to Burnside Av and Express from 149 to Burnside then local to Woodlawn .

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

I for one actually support a full retool of the 4 to make it similar to the 6 where it runs Local in the Bronx to Burnside Av and Express from 149 to Burnside then local to Woodlawn .

This would be a no go. 161st alone is busy enough where all trains along Jerome need to be stopping there. Plus Kingsbridge and Fordham Road are heavily used stops and you don't want a plan that steeply reduces the number of TPH that hits those stops. The 6 setup works because there's considerably more service running than on the 4 and the setup keeps all the trains stopping at Parkchester and Hunts Point which are your heavy traffic stops.

[Lance]

The is not the . It is neither long enough or designed for practical local/express service similar to the / .

[SubwayGuy]

He was talking about the Pilot Program back in 2009

 

And I was responding to the second part of his post, not the first.

 

Reading comprehension...

This would be a no go. 161st alone is busy enough where all trains along Jerome need to be stopping there. Plus Kingsbridge and Fordham Road are heavily used stops and you don't want a plan that steeply reduces the number of TPH that hits those stops. The 6 setup works because there's considerably more service running than on the 4 and the setup keeps all the trains stopping at Parkchester and Hunts Point which are your heavy traffic stops.

 

Exactly. But railfans must have express service because "every track must be used!"

 

Never mind that the middle track is quite functional for baseball specials to be staged so they are ready to pick up after the game from 161 after crossing over to the local at 167, to take the crowd back to the city...