Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[chenvinny54]

The G concept is interesting, however, there is no capacity to spare in the 53rd Street tunnel. If there was additional capacity it would go toward boosting service. The switch at West Fourth Street would delay service.

 

Your is running express and running via 53rd Street. There is no switch from Sixth Avenue Express to 53rd Street. You could have the B run via 63rd Street as the switches are there. The problem with your service pattern is that the M would have to switches from the Sixth Avenue Local tracks to the Sixth Avenue Express tracks to access Central Park West making this pattern unpractical. See here.

http://nyctrackbook.com/Images/p14.pdf

 

Also, how are you going to have enough space in the Cranberry Tube for your rush hour service. The capacity there is 26 TPH. Unless you plan on cutting or via Fulton this won't work. Why would you rob Peter to pay Paul, when Paul doesn't even need to be paid?

Ok, Unionturnpike, then when i am free, i will edit the map, revive the and operate on the fulton line, and thus operate at the Cranberry tube for rush hour only, when you all guys improve the electricity capacity for the track to Coney Island. As a result, that will be around 42 TPH. This plan will be for at least next decade. That is the future if NYC economy makes at least a trillion dollars per year starting from year 2020, while the second phase of the second avenue subway is under construction.

Same service enhancement goes to the line, for the 53 Street Tunnel. Let the economy make another few trillions in budget, then the line for downtown loop will be the next phase for the MTA workers.

The track connection for service sport, I'll answer you later. i will refresh my memory, and see how the track transports the cars from where to where.

Anyway, thank you for your kind cooperation. I am the new person to discover how the subway track is connected and addressed by the track controller.

[Fresh Pond]

Isn't the 63 St tunnel being extended to inude space for the LIRR?

63 St tunnel was built for both subway (top level) and LIRR (bottom level).

[chenvinny54]

The G concept is interesting, however, there is no capacity to spare in the 53rd Street tunnel. If there was additional capacity it would go toward boosting service. The switch at West Fourth Street would delay service.

 

Your is running express and running via 53rd Street. There is no switch from Sixth Avenue Express to 53rd Street. You could have the B run via 63rd Street as the switches are there. The problem with your service pattern is that the M would have to switches from the Sixth Avenue Local tracks to the Sixth Avenue Express tracks to access Central Park West making this pattern unpractical. See here.

http://nyctrackbook.com/Images/p14.pdf

 

Also, how are you going to have enough space in the Cranberry Tube for your rush hour service. The capacity there is 26 TPH. Unless you plan on cutting or via Fulton this won't work. Why would you rob Peter to pay Paul, when Paul doesn't even need to be paid?

Also, to let NYC keep on track on my l9 ng term suggestion, I recommend the NYC economy to make more money, and attract more refugees. Then the economy will make more money than now. I suggest them the goal to make at least a trillion dollars biannually, so they can afford to upgrade the electricity capacity in order to light up more hunk of watts for 53 St queens manhattan tunnel track for the downtown loop , and incresse the amount of TPH for the Cranberry Tube, to let the train perform rush hour service via the for the customers living near the Coney Island station. In this case, customers crowding around that station can travel to Times Square via 8 Av or Penn Station, without changing to another train, and other crowds on the , can get to manhattan on time via the express service.

Once again, i still need to refresh my memory to follow how the track connection operates the from one place to another.

Thabk you for your kind cooperation again, and i hope you have a wonderful day.

[Union Tpke]

Also, to let NYC keep on track on my l9 ng term suggestion, I recommend the NYC economy to make more money, and attract more refugees. Then the economy will make more money than now. I suggest them the goal to make at least a trillion dollars biannually, so they can afford to upgrade the electricity capacity in order to light up more hunk of watts for 53 St queens manhattan tunnel track for the downtown loop , and incresse the amount of TPH for the Cranberry Tube, to let the train perform rush hour service via the for the customers living near the Coney Island station. In this case, customers crowding around that station can travel to Times Square via 8 Av or Penn Station, without changing to another train, and other crowds on the , can get to manhattan on time via the express service.

Once again, i still need to refresh my memory to follow how the track connection operates the from one place to another.

Thabk you for your kind cooperation again, and i hope you have a wonderful day.

 

there are things that are more important then what you are proposing 

For example:

Four Tracks SAS

Third Avenue Line and 163/Lafayette Avenue Line in the Bronx

Fordham/Pelham Pkwy Line

Concourse to WPR

Worth Street/Grand/Utica Avenue

Nostrand Avenue Extension

Hillside Extension to LNP

Southeast Queens extension of Archer Line to Rosedale

Rockaway Beach Branch

Four Track Myrtle Avenue/Union Turnpike Line

Fort Hamilton Parkway Line

Extension of Flushing Line via the LIRR Central ROW

Whitestone Line

Conversion of Port Washington Branch to Subway

Queens Bypass Line

Long Island Expressway Line

Extension of BMT Myrtle Line to Woodhaven Boulevard

Extension of IND Fulton Line via Linden Boulevard to 229 Street

Extension of Liberty El to Jamaica Center

Branch of Fourth Avenue Line to SI

Conversion of Flushing Line to B Division

Extension of BMT Astoria Line via Ditmars to LGA and then to Flushing

Tenth Avenue Line extension of Canarsie Line continuing via 50th Street and Northern Boulevard

TriboroRx

...oops I got a bit carried away

[chenvinny54]

The G concept is interesting, however, there is no capacity to spare in the 53rd Street tunnel. If there was additional capacity it would go toward boosting service. The switch at West Fourth Street would delay service.

 

Your is running express and running via 53rd Street. There is no switch from Sixth Avenue Express to 53rd Street. You could have the B run via 63rd Street as the switches are there. The problem with your service pattern is that the M would have to switches from the Sixth Avenue Local tracks to the Sixth Avenue Express tracks to access Central Park West making this pattern unpractical. See here.

http://nyctrackbook.com/Images/p14.pdf

 

Also, how are you going to have enough space in the Cranberry Tube for your rush hour service. The capacity there is 26 TPH. Unless you plan on cutting or via Fulton this won't work. Why would you rob Peter to pay Paul, when Paul doesn't even need to be paid?

To let America fulfill my suggested long term goal, i wish the UK will help US more often. I also wish the UK our luck too, work together to reach more quicker. More budget made, more subway lines for us to revive out and implant them in formal way, but also with reasoning. Of the UK and US as the future partner, it is always two heads better than one.

[Union Tpke]

To let America fulfill my suggested long term goal, i wish the UK will help US more often. I also wish the UK our luck too, work together to reach more quicker. More budget made, more subway lines for us to revive out and implant them in formal way, but also with reasoning. Of the UK and US as the future partner, it is always two heads better than one.

 

why would the UK help us, and specifically for a transit plan that does not serve NYC's needs?

[chenvinny54]

To let America fulfill my suggested long term goal, i wish the UK will help US more often. I also wish the UK our luck too, work together to reach more quicker. More budget made, more subway lines for us to revive out and implant them in formal way, but also with reasoning. Of the UK and US as the future partner, it is always two heads better than one.

Note that I remember the fact, UK lives a really high standard. They are always rich, hardworking, and professional.

[chenvinny54]

why would the UK help us, and specifically for a transit plan that does not serve NYC's needs.

i just saying, while i was bit carried away of my repeated quote "two heads work better than one". I meant i am thinking about NYC hoping our hometown to get really rich, to get what they need for their future. I dont meant to push them, they can take alot of time to grow our economic budgets big, and make the population really proud, such as displaying out attractive commercials possible can be an excellent role to play. Best thing is, avoid any causes of downfall.

[chenvinny54]

there are things that are more important then what you are proposing

For example:

Four Tracks SAS

Third Avenue Line and 163/Lafayette Avenue Line in the Bronx

Fordham/Pelham Pkwy Line

Concourse to WPR

Worth Street/Grand/Utica Avenue

Nostrand Avenue Extension

Hillside Extension to LNP

Southeast Queens extension of Archer Line to Rosedale

Rockaway Beach Branch

Four Track Myrtle Avenue/Union Turnpike Line

Fort Hamilton Parkway Line

Extension of Flushing Line via the LIRR Central ROW

Whitestone Line

Conversion of Port Washington Branch to Subway

Queens Bypass Line

Long Island Expressway Line

Extension of BMT Myrtle Line to Woodhaven Boulevard

Extension of IND Fulton Line via Linden Boulevard to 229 Street

Extension of Liberty El to Jamaica Center

Branch of Fourth Avenue Line to SI

Conversion of Flushing Line to B Division

Extension of BMT Astoria Line via Ditmars to LGA and then to Flushing

Tenth Avenue Line extension of Canarsie Line continuing via 50th Street and Northern Boulevard

TriboroRx

...oops I got a bit carried away

Anyway thank you for the list of subway line routes. To know them all, when im free, i can research what avenues and streets, or landmarks are locating via these routes. My proposals are regarding to just some of them. Others are not fully constructed yet. Edited January 18, 2016 by chenvinny54

[CenSin]

attract more refugees

It’s more of a political matter:

• Refugees are a drain on the economy and tax-funded resources;
• They make places less attractive to live in;
• Trouble can be found wherever they go.

[Javier]

What about extending the to Flatbush AV.

[Trainmaster5]

I have a question for everyone about the terminal station at 96th St and Second Avenue. It's currently the projected home of the line and maybe the line will stop there if the complete SAS is ever built. I have seen proposals to run the line to that terminal on weekends or during the line tunnel work. From what I recall the terminal is a 2 track setup similar to Flatbush Ave-Brooklyn College on the , lines or Parsons -Archer on the . Correct me if I'm wrong here. My RTO folks can probably see where I'm going with this. Let's say this idea some posters have is implemented. You are the dispatcher at that terminal. There's a delay on either service and now you have 2 or more trains from the same service back to back to back. train BMT South equipment. train BMT Eastern equipment. Trains and crews not interchangeable. If the ever comes around it will use or equipment. This is not Flatbush nor is it Parsons-Archer. The proposed 72nd St setup is a memory. Does anyone really believe Operations and Planning would approve such a plan. This looks like a disaster that's guaranteed to happen. On paper only the or  maybe the runs the proper amount of service to fit that slot on Second Avenue. To add another service up there would entail cutting back on the . Even if the went up there in an emergency some Broadway service would have to be cut back to fit those extra trains in. What some posters overlook is you can't swap equipment up there. The IRT terminal at Flatbush Avenue has an interchangeable fleet to work with. I've been down there on weekends where a a or a has shown up in an emergency and the crew was allowed to use the rest room and walked back to their train and sent on their way. What I'm getting at is unless scheduling has really changed in the last few years there will be 2 trains in the terminal at all times. No room for an outsider by schedule. I don't see them cutting back Brighton (or Sea Beach) service weekdays or weekends for this proposal to see the light of day. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[Fresh Pond]

What about extending the to Flatbush AV.

For what...

[Wallyhorse]

I have a question for everyone about the terminal station at 96th St and Second Avenue. It's currently the projected home of the Q line and maybe the T line will stop there if the complete SAS is ever built. I have seen proposals to run the M line to that terminal on weekends or during the L line tunnel work. From what I recall the terminal is a 2 track setup similar to Flatbush Ave-Brooklyn College on the 2/5 lines or Parsons -Archer on the J. Correct me if I'm wrong here. My RTO folks can probably see where I'm going with this. Let's say this M idea some posters have is implemented. You are the dispatcher at that terminal. There's a delay on either service and now you have 2 or more trains from the same service back to back to back. Q train BMT South equipment. M train BMT Eastern equipment. Trains and crews not interchangeable. If the T ever comes around it will use Q or N equipment. This is not Flatbush nor is it Parsons-Archer. The proposed 72nd St setup is a memory. Does anyone really believe Operations and Planning would approve such a plan. This looks like a disaster that's guaranteed to happen. On paper only the Q or  maybe the N runs the proper amount of service to fit that slot on Second Avenue. To add another service up there would entail cutting back on the Q. Even if the M went up there in an emergency some Broadway service would have to be cut back to fit those extra trains in. What some posters overlook is you can't swap equipment up there. The IRT terminal at Flatbush Avenue has an interchangeable fleet to work with. I've been down there on weekends where a 1 a 4 or a 6 has shown up in an emergency and the crew was allowed to use the rest room and walked back to their train and sent on their way. What I'm getting at is unless scheduling has really changed in the last few years there will be 2 Q trains in the terminal at all times. No room for an outsider by schedule. I don't see them cutting back Brighton (or Sea Beach) service weekdays or weekends for this M proposal to see the light of day. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

Keep in mind with 96th/2nd, there I believe will be tail tracks to 105th Street, so unlike Parsons-Archer you can run more trains there. 

 

The way I would do it, the , even while the is shut down would remain exactly as it is now on weekdays.

 

What I was proposing with an "Orange " is that line would (on weekdays) be strictly a supplement to the along the Myrtle and Broadway-Brooklyn Els and 6th Avenue with no more than 6-7 TPH.  This would essentially be beefing up the line for the shutdown but with the "Orange " going to a different terminal, in this case 96th/2nd instead of Queens Boulevard.  Going to 96th/2nd with this line allows for slightly fewer trains in actual use on a combined / overall than if you sent ALL trains to 71-Continental.  

 

Late nights and weekends (11:00 PM-5:30 weeknights and 11:00 PM Friday-5:30 AM Monday), this new "Orange " would take over, replacing the along the portion of the route the runs during those hours and continue running to 96th/2nd.  This would run at 5-6 TPH on weekends in the daytime and evenings and at what are normal late night levels during the overnights.   Doing this also eliminates any confusion from the having different terminals on weekdays and late nights/weekends.  

 

Yes, there is always the risk for disruptions, but given the line will eventually be dealing with 28-30 TPH if the SAS is ever completely built out, this is for now probably is doable with likely a combined 20-21 TPH between the and "Orange (T)" with minimal delays from the latter crossing at 63rd/Lex.  This probably is the best way to handle the shutdown for now and likely where an "Orange " could actually be made permanent even after the returned.

[chenvinny54]

<p>

 

It’s more of a political matter:

• Refugees are a drain on the economy and tax-funded resources;
• They make places less attractive to live in;
• Trouble can be found wherever they go.

Okay, now i know, that can be mostly dark skins; to me it is really painful to see them. The ordinary ones are not well educated because of the segregation back in the 50s wheb the white individuals got plenty of schools and colleges, on the other hand the blacks dont, and they were categorized between whites and skin colored, assuming that they hate each other.

Anyway to make NYC be more freelancer via sufficient budget, we hope that lots of UK, which is the most rich country in the world, living their high life standards. That is a reason why i considered to Uniontpke about that, i just trying to help NYC raise up their economy, also by jailing anybody who causes the major trouble via their bad demeanor, and to play this role smoothly, hire more cops.

 

If NYC had being rich like UK, then the MTA workers wouldve follow my proposals. In other words, MTA subway needs more budgets to raise up the electricity capacity, to free more space of the tunnels, such as Cranberry Tube to Coney Island from Hoyt Schemmerhorn Sts, and the 53 Street Tunnel from the local track at 47-50 Rockefeller Center.

[chenvinny54]

there are things that are more important then what you are proposing

For example:

Four Tracks SAS

Third Avenue Line and 163/Lafayette Avenue Line in the Bronx

Fordham/Pelham Pkwy Line

Concourse to WPR

Worth Street/Grand/Utica Avenue

Nostrand Avenue Extension

Hillside Extension to LNP

Southeast Queens extension of Archer Line to Rosedale

Rockaway Beach Branch

Four Track Myrtle Avenue/Union Turnpike Line

Fort Hamilton Parkway Line

Extension of Flushing Line via the LIRR Central ROW

Whitestone Line

Conversion of Port Washington Branch to Subway

Queens Bypass Line

Long Island Expressway Line

Extension of BMT Myrtle Line to Woodhaven Boulevard

Extension of IND Fulton Line via Linden Boulevard to 229 Street

Extension of Liberty El to Jamaica Center

Branch of Fourth Avenue Line to SI

Conversion of Flushing Line to B Division

Extension of BMT Astoria Line via Ditmars to LGA and then to Flushing

Tenth Avenue Line extension of Canarsie Line continuing via 50th Street and Northern Boulevard

TriboroRx

...oops I got a bit carried away

Ok Unionturnpike, i found out the detail for 42 street bryant park and 34 street herald square. When the queensbound approaches 42 Street, it will switch to the local track, so it can be guided to queens blvd line via 53 Street. The southbound may switch to the express track right after departing from 42 Street. Therefore northbound local track from 42 Street is going to Queens via 53 St. The southbound local track lets the train switch to express track after leaving 42 Street. https://goo.gl/photos/5hFV5bFcDivdg6eP6

For the , the northbound switches to the express track in its middle of the trip from 34 Street to 42 Street. The brooklyn bound one

switches to the local track before it will arrive at 34 Street. Therefore the northbound express track after 34 Street is taking the to The Bronx, via Central Park West.

https://goo.gl/photos/BEDTq4vEt1GyUTLa6

Edited January 18, 2016 by chenvinny54

[CenSin]

Okay, now i know, that can be mostly dark skins; to me it is really painful to see them. The ordinary ones are not well educated because of the segregation back in the 50s wheb the white individuals got plenty of schools and colleges, on the other hand the blacks dont, and they were categorized between whites and skin colored, assuming that they hate each other.

Anyway to make NYC be more freelancer via sufficient budget, we hope that lots of UK, which is the most rich country in the world, living their high life standards. That is a reason why i considered to Uniontpke about that, i just trying to help NYC raise up their economy, also by jailing anybody who causes the major trouble via their bad demeanor, and to play this role smoothly, hire more cops.

 

If NYC had being rich like UK, then the MTA workers wouldve follow my proposals. In other words, MTA subway needs more budgets to raise up the electricity capacity, to free more space of the tunnels, such as Cranberry Tube to Coney Island from Hoyt Schemmerhorn Sts, and the 53 Street Tunnel from the local track at 47-50 Rockefeller Center.

It’s not about dark-skins or the white–black dichotomy and jailing all the naughty boys sounds like a child’s unsophisticated, wishful thinking without any detailed thought process behind the process or side effects.

 

A helpful method I was taught to reach a goal is to work backwards from the results you want. What resources are available? How are the resources allocated? What needs to be done with the resources to produce any intermediate outcomes? You haven’t considered any of those things.

 

Ok Unionturnpike, i found out the detail for 42 street bryant park and 34 street herald square. When the queensbound approaches 42 Street, it will switch to the local track, so it can be guided to queens blvd line via 53 Street. The southbound may switch to the express track right after departing from 42 Street. Therefore northbound local track from 42 Street is going to Queens via 53 St. The southbound local track lets the train switch to express track after leaving 42 Street. https://goo.gl/photos/5hFV5bFcDivdg6eP6

For the , the northbound switches to the express track in its middle of the trip from 34 Street to 42 Street. The brooklyn bound one

switches to the local track before it will arrive at 34 Street. Therefore the northbound express track after 34 Street is taking the to The Bronx, via Central Park West.

https://goo.gl/photos/BEDTq4vEt1GyUTLa6

We just had a series of posts on why that kind of operation is a bad idea. I suggest you read it (starting here and here).

[Around the Horn]

I have a question for everyone about the terminal station at 96th St and Second Avenue. It's currently the projected home of the line and maybe the line will stop there if the complete SAS is ever built. I have seen proposals to run the line to that terminal on weekends or during the line tunnel work. From what I recall the terminal is a 2 track setup similar to Flatbush Ave-Brooklyn College on the , lines or Parsons -Archer on the . Correct me if I'm wrong here. My RTO folks can probably see where I'm going with this. Let's say this idea some posters have is implemented. You are the dispatcher at that terminal. There's a delay on either service and now you have 2 or more trains from the same service back to back to back. train BMT South equipment. train BMT Eastern equipment. Trains and crews not interchangeable. If the ever comes around it will use or equipment. This is not Flatbush nor is it Parsons-Archer. The proposed 72nd St setup is a memory. Does anyone really believe Operations and Planning would approve such a plan. This looks like a disaster that's guaranteed to happen. On paper only the or  maybe the runs the proper amount of service to fit that slot on Second Avenue. To add another service up there would entail cutting back on the . Even if the went up there in an emergency some Broadway service would have to be cut back to fit those extra trains in. What some posters overlook is you can't swap equipment up there. The IRT terminal at Flatbush Avenue has an interchangeable fleet to work with. I've been down there on weekends where a a or a has shown up in an emergency and the crew was allowed to use the rest room and walked back to their train and sent on their way. What I'm getting at is unless scheduling has really changed in the last few years there will be 2 trains in the terminal at all times. No room for an outsider by schedule. I don't see them cutting back Brighton (or Sea Beach) service weekdays or weekends for this proposal to see the light of day. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

There will be tail tracks to 105 Street like Hudson Yards. If necessary, have a train dump, and move in to a tail track OR have dispatchers communicate with one another and reroute that M before it gets to Lex-63 instead of letting it run blindly into a wall.

 

If you have two trains back to back, send them both and inform passengers that the is delayed, take the to Herald Square. Then turn the next uptown at 57 Street and send it back to Metropolitan to pick up the passengers who went to 34th. If you have to, hold an F at Lexington Avenue-63 Street to give the M another minute.

 

Recently, they have really cut down time spent in terminals. When I was at Hudson Yards opening, there were never two trains scheduled to be sitting at the same time, however there were times where a train would already be there, another came in and then the first one left a minute later.

[Trainmaster5]

There will be tail tracks to 105 Street like Hudson Yards. If necessary, have a train dump, and move in to a tail track OR have dispatchers communicate with one another and reroute that M before it gets to Lex-63 instead of letting it run blindly into a wall.

 

If you have two trains back to back, send them both and inform passengers that the is delayed, take the to Herald Square. Then turn the next uptown at 57 Street and send it back to Metropolitan to pick up the passengers who went to 34th. If you have to, hold an F at Lexington Avenue-63 Street to give the M another minute.

 

Recently, they have really cut down time spent in terminals. When I was at Hudson Yards opening, there were never two trains scheduled to be sitting at the same time, however there were times where a train would already be there, another came in and then the first one left a minute later.

Hudson Yards and the is a different setup than what I was getting at. In that case you have one fleet and one service. That line's frequent headways are unique in RTO. Even when TSQ was the terminal if something was wrong with one consist you simply used the one across the platform.Redundancy was(is) built into the system to cover most contingencies. What I'm referencing is what I've experienced at Flatbush-Brooklyn College when we had two services and two fleets using those two tracks. We had the 9 car line as the primary and the 10 car line added to the mix during rush hours. We had an ATD at Franklin Avenue and the tower at Nostrand Junction spotting the s/b service too. All we needed was for 1 thing to go wrong uptown or at the terminal and Flatbush was SOL. Let two or three nine car or ten car trains come back to back and there's nothing you can do to prevent that s/b delay from becoming a n/b delay. Let one of those trains at the terminal refuse to charge up and two lines are screwed up. That's precisely why the present and setup at Flatbush won't be changed. That's why the Operations and Planning department wouldn't give much (any) consideration to terminal sharing with the , scenario. I'm sure all of you have read the TA's on-time performance charts. I'm also sure that most of you have used the system on weekends. I'd bet no one has noticed that there are usually two trains berthed at the terminal except when one has just left. Redundancy again. It's set up that way in case there is a problem with one of those consists you automatically use the other one.Let me use Dyre Avenue as an example. Two tracks with two layup tracks north of the station and relay/layup tracks south of the station. Depending on the problem if one train has issues in the station it may not be able to move at all. The relay/layup tracks are useless for all intent. The delay, if any, can be charged to the line and won't affect any other line. As a rule you don't see two or more lines sharing a terminal unless there is a yard lead which connects to that station. I have personally witnessed arguments between superintendents in the IRT where two lines share a terminal and/or trackage. Remember those on-time performance charts I mentioned earlier? Suppose your job or bonus review included those OTP numbers as well as crew payroll and OT numbers. The Supt. job does. Unless the head of Subways, Payroll, and Operations and Planning, as well as both superintendents can work it out that relay/layup track is useless unless someone's budget creates jobs for relay people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that's the reality of things in RTO. When I mentioned the KISS mantra in an earlier post everything I've just written comes in to play. It's always about the Benjamins in the . What seems to make sense to an outsider enters an alternate universe when it comes to the . I have brought a redbird into Livonia Yard to lay up overnight and noticed broken glass in the last car. I notify the Yard Dispatcher who then notifies Car Equipment in the barn at Livonia. All of us are oldtimers on first name terms. We have two choices. I can get back on that consist, take it back to East 180th St barn and return with a replacement train. line Supt. pays me OT out of his budget. Choice number two means either I or the switchmen at Livonia yard swing the consist into the barn so the glass can be replaced. line Supt. pays the line for the time and work performed. Either way the line Supt. is gonna pay. If I chose to take that train back to East 180th St for an exchange and I get caught up in a delay behind a , , or don't think the Supt. won't try to get them to pay part of my OT. It's happened to me. Carry on.

Edited January 19, 2016 by Trainmaster5

[chenvinny54]

Similiar to Create your own bus route! in our MTA Bus Operations forum, create your own subway route. Assign your subway route a route bullet, describe the route, station locations and transfers, assign cars (past, present or future subway cars), and assign a yard. Most of all have fun!

 

This is my own Create Your Own Subway Route:

 

70(8) Third Avenue

• New I.R.T. (A Division) Route

• Uses R62s

• Serves Third Avenue, Webster Avenue and East Gun Hill Road

 

Stations

Manhattan

• East Harlem-Park-Lexington Avenues Transfer MNRR

 

The Bronx

• East 138th Street Transfer

• The Hub-East 149th Street Transfer

• East 156th Street

• East 161st Street

• East 168th Street

• Claremont Parkway

• East 174th Street

• East Tremont Avenue

• East 180th Street

• East 183d Street

• Fordham Plaza

• Bedford Park Boulevard

• 204th Street

• Williamsbridge-210th Street

• White Plains Road Transfer

• Seymour Avenue-East Gun Hill Road Transfer

 

The 70(8) is based at Unionport Yard in The Bronx

Okay, this is going to be a possible extention on one of my subway map proposal, the second avenue line, agreed to bring the into Uptown, and thus reviving the back to run locally from Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Whitehalls.

But we will make sure NYC will reach around $10 trillion by the time when the final phase of the second avenue construction is finished.

We the people wishing our Country an excellent luck

[Wallyhorse]

Hudson Yards and the 7 is a different setup than what I was getting at. In that case you have one fleet and one service. That line's frequent headways are unique in RTO. Even when TSQ was the terminal if something was wrong with one consist you simply used the one across the platform.Redundancy was(is) built into the system to cover most contingencies. What I'm referencing is what I've experienced at Flatbush-Brooklyn College when we had two services and two fleets using those two tracks. We had the 9 car 3 line as the primary and the 10 car 4 line added to the mix during rush hours. We had an ATD at Franklin Avenue and the tower at Nostrand Junction spotting the s/b service too. All we needed was for 1 thing to go wrong uptown or at the terminal and Flatbush was SOL. Let two or three nine car or ten car trains come back to back and there's nothing you can do to prevent that s/b delay from becoming a n/b delay. Let one of those trains at the terminal refuse to charge up and two lines are screwed up. That's precisely why the present 2 and 5 setup at Flatbush won't be changed. That's why the Operations and Planning department wouldn't give much (any) consideration to terminal sharing with the M, Q scenario. I'm sure all of you have read the TA's on-time performance charts. I'm also sure that most of you have used the system on weekends. I'd bet no one has noticed that there are usually two trains berthed at the terminal except when one has just left. Redundancy again. It's set up that way in case there is a problem with one of those consists you automatically use the other one.Let me use Dyre Avenue as an example. Two tracks with two layup tracks north of the station and relay/layup tracks south of the station. Depending on the problem if one train has issues in the station it may not be able to move at all. The relay/layup tracks are useless for all intent. The delay, if any, can be charged to the line and won't affect any other line. As a rule you don't see two or more lines sharing a terminal unless there is a yard lead which connects to that station. I have personally witnessed arguments between superintendents in the IRT where two lines share a terminal and/or trackage. Remember those on-time performance charts I mentioned earlier? Suppose your job or bonus review included those OTP numbers as well as crew payroll and OT numbers. The Supt. job does. Unless the head of Subways, Payroll, and Operations and Planning, as well as both superintendents can work it out that relay/layup track is useless unless someone's budget creates jobs for relay people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that's the reality of things in RTO. When I mentioned the KISS mantra in an earlier post everything I've just written comes in to play. It's always about the Benjamins in the . What seems to make sense to an outsider enters an alternate universe when it comes to the . I have brought a redbird 5 into Livonia Yard to lay up overnight and noticed broken glass in the last car. I notify the Yard Dispatcher who then notifies Car Equipment in the barn at Livonia. All of us are oldtimers on first name terms. We have two choices. I can get back on that consist, take it back to East 180th St barn and return with a replacement train. 5 line Supt. pays me OT out of his budget. Choice number two means either I or the switchmen at Livonia yard swing the consist into the barn so the glass can be replaced. 5 line Supt. pays the 3 line for the time and work performed. Either way the 5 line Supt. is gonna pay. If I chose to take that train back to East 180th St for an exchange and I get caught up in a delay behind a 2, 3, or 4 don't think the Supt. won't try to get them to pay part of my OT. It's happened to me. Carry on.

Except in my plan for the 2nd Avenue trains it would during the week be a 2/1 split between and "Orange (T)" trains (with the at 14 TPH at peak hours and the at a MAXIMUM of 6-7 TPH at any time since this would really be an train that goes to the upper east side instead of Queens Boulevard as the actual would stay as it is now).  

 

Perhaps since we have the construction taking place before the shuts down anyway from what I understand, what could be done is to make it where stations along the that are not already 600 feet are done as well, even if it means doing it with temporary platform extensions at some stations.  Obviously, work would have to be done at Metropolitan in particular as well as Essex to make that happen, but keep in mind, this would I believe be really 65 feet worth of extensions (except at Metropolitan) since as I understand it those stations (except for Metropolitan) used to handle eight-car trains of 67 foot Standards that had such trains at 536 feet, so as it is if so most of these stations can handle 540-foot nine-car trains if so (though obviously that would be a tight fit).  

 

That would make it easier to switch around equipment if needed since with at least nine-car trains, it could be done easier.

[chenvinny54]

It’s not about dark-skins or the white–black dichotomy and jailing all the naughty boys sounds like a child’s unsophisticated, wishful thinking without any detailed thought process behind the process or side effects.

 

A helpful method I was taught to reach a goal is to work backwards from the results you want. What resources are available? How are the resources allocated? What needs to be done with the resources to produce any intermediate outcomes? You haven’t considered any of those things.

 

We just had a series of posts on why that kind of operation is a bad idea. I suggest you read it (starting here and here).

Okay unionturnpike and CenSin, i admit it, if your workers dont want to change the to the queens blvd line, fine have it you way. Im really sorry for attemping to make your job little more difficult with my horrible proposal ideas. Well, i started to feel interested on the (X) train proposal made by the engineerboy6561, which will operate from Pelham Bay Park, to Borough hall, going through Main street, something like that. Edited January 19, 2016 by chenvinny54

[Fresh Pond]

Except in my plan for the 2nd Avenue trains it would during the week be a 2/1 split between and "Orange (T)" trains (with the at 14 TPH at peak hours and the at a MAXIMUM of 6-7 TPH at any time since this would really be an train that goes to the upper east side instead of Queens Boulevard as the actual would stay as it is now).

 

Perhaps since we have the construction taking place before the shuts down anyway from what I understand, what could be done is to make it where stations along the that are not already 600 feet are done as well, even if it means doing it with temporary platform extensions at some stations. Obviously, work would have to be done at Metropolitan in particular as well as Essex to make that happen, but keep in mind, this would I believe be really 65 feet worth of extensions (except at Metropolitan) since as I understand it those stations (except for Metropolitan) used to handle eight-car trains of 67 foot Standards that had such trains at 536 feet, so as it is if so most of these stations can handle 540-foot nine-car trains if so (though obviously that would be a tight fit).

 

That would make it easier to switch around equipment if needed since with at least nine-car trains, it could be done easier.

You're literally spewing the same exact stuff over and over again...

[MysteriousBtrain]

Okay unionturnpike and CenSin, i admit it, if your workers dont want to change the to the queens blvd line, fine have it you way. Im really sorry for attemping to make your job little more difficult with my horrible proposal ideas. Well, i started to feel interested on the (X) train proposal made by the engineerboy6561, which will operate from Pelham Bay Park, to Borough hall, going through Main street, something like that.

Wel you're not the worst guy with proposals (*cough*wallyhorse*cough), but we need labels and routes that everyone in the city would be comfortable with. For example, people were more comfortable with an orange instead of an extension of the to replace the brown . Another one, recently talked about, was switching up the and to get faster service in Brooklyn, but the people on Brighton want Broadway service too. Whenever you make a proposal, think about if people would like the changes, how would it run, and if the path can be possible.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Wel you're not the worst guy with proposals (*cough*wallyhorse*cough), but we need labels and routes that everyone in the city would be comfortable with. For example, people were more comfortable with an orange instead of an extension of the to replace the brown . Another one, recently talked about, was switching up the and to get faster service in Brooklyn, but the people on Brighton want Broadway service too. Whenever you make a proposal, think about if people would like the changes, how would it run, and if the path can be possible.

But with proper communication people can be convinced to warm up to said proposal once they understand it.