Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[cl94]

The could run local via tunnel as well. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. If the ran through the tunnel, everyone would be jumping off at Dekalb to catch a .

[Take a Ride on the 1]

Why did the MTA really cut the  from Forest Hills back in April 2010? Was it because the MTA lacked equipment for  to down Queens Blvd? Or was it due to low ridership? I think  was useful on the weekends (On queens blvd) even though it would been a hassle to catch with 4 cars. 

[cl94]

Why did the MTA really cut the  from Forest Hills back in April 2010? Was it because the MTA lacked equipment for  to down Queens Blvd? Or was it due to low ridership? I think  was useful on the weekends (On queens blvd) even though it would been a hassle to catch with 4 cars. 

 

Equipment and money. Not only does it reduce the number of crews required, but this was a few months after the retirement of the R44s was announced. Since a bunch of R32s/42s and all 38s/40s were already gone, there are now fewer 600' train equivalents in the system. This is part of why the is still 8 cars - not enough cars for everything to have full-length trains.

[bobtehpanda]

Why did the MTA really cut the  from Forest Hills back in April 2010? Was it because the MTA lacked equipment for  to down Queens Blvd? Or was it due to low ridership? I think  was useful on the weekends (On queens blvd) even though it would been a hassle to catch with 4 cars. 

 

To add on, there were so many GOs that the stopped at Court Sq anyways more often than not. With Queens Blvd CBTC work, that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.

[Wallyhorse]

Equipment and money. Not only does it reduce the number of crews required, but this was a few months after the retirement of the R44s was announced. Since a bunch of R32s/42s and all 38s/40s were already gone, there are now fewer 600' train equivalents in the system. This is part of why the is still 8 cars - not enough cars for everything to have full-length trains.

And why the should have not been so quick to scrap the R38s/40s.  Had they done that, maybe they were not in the best shape, but could have at least handled some of the load lost when the R44s had to be retired unexpectedly.

[B46 via Utica]

And why the should have not been so quick to scrap the R38s/40s.  Had they done that, maybe they were not in the best shape, but could have at least handled some of the load lost when the R44s had to be retired unexpectedly.

The R38s had to be desperately retired because of thier conditions(I've been in public toilets cleaner than thier interiors) so they were out. The R40s should of been kept I'd rather them here than the R42s but what's done is done we have to play what the hand we have.

[Take a Ride on the 1]

The R38s had to be desperately retired because of thier conditions(I've been in public toilets cleaner than thier interiors) so they were out. The R40s should of been kept I'd rather them here than the R42s but what's done is done we have to play what the hand we have.

R40s rusted and ended worst then R38's. 

Equipment and money. Not only does it reduce the number of crews required, but this was a few months after the retirement of the R44s was announced. Since a bunch of R32s/42s and all 38s/40s were already gone, there are now fewer 600' train equivalents in the system. This is part of why the is still 8 cars - not enough cars for everything to have full-length trains.

So you saying the  was cut back from Queens Blvd due to R44 being retired and Most of R46 equipment going to 207 St yard for  ? Even with the R68/R68A do you think the  still has a chance to be extended? Will the extension compromise some cars from    at Coney Island Yard?

[cl94]

So you saying the  was cut back from Queens Blvd due to R44 being retired and Most of R46 equipment going to 207 St yard for  ? Even with the R68/R68A do you think the  still has a chance to be extended? Will the extension compromise some cars from    at Coney Island Yard?

 

It isn't the only reason, but it is part of it. If you decompose into 60 foot equivalents, we have fewer cars now than we had pre-2010. There are roughly 130 spare R68s, amounting to ~16 spare 8 car trains. With inspections and breakdowns, that doesn't leave much room for extra service. Theoretically, they could throw some R46s on the , but again, those are basically reserve cars for the .

[Eric B]

R40s rusted and ended worst then R38's. 

Not the modifieds, for some reason. They were in better condition that the 42's.

[Take a Ride on the 1]

To add on, there were so many GOs that the stopped at Court Sq anyways more often than not. With Queens Blvd CBTC work, that is unlikely to change for the foreseeable future.

Why would you say that? 

[Around the Horn]

Why would you say that? 

When the and share tracks with the due to construction work, there are often delays. Adding the or to this would just add to the delays.

[Take a Ride on the 1]

When the and share tracks with the due to construction work, there are often delays. Adding the or to this would just add to the delays.

How? If that's the case then MTA could extend the  to 179 with  and  with the  to Jamaica Center.   could go with the   as well. 

 

What if the MTA didn't have   bullet back in 2001? Would the MTA turn back to 1986  bullet?

[Union Tpke]

How? If that's the case then MTA could extend the  to 179 with  and  with the  to Jamaica Center.   could go with the   as well. 

 

What if the MTA didn't have   bullet back in 2001? Would the MTA turn back to 1986  bullet?

 

No, because it bring extreme confusion.

[Lance]

How? If that's the case then MTA could extend the  to 179 with  and  with the  to Jamaica Center.   could go with the   as well. 

 

Two problems with that. First, extending any line beyond its current end point will require more cars and trains to keep service levels the same. We have a bit of a problem with that right now. Secondly, while 179 Street would be fine with another line terminating there, Jamaica Center will not. As it is, a few trains run to/from 179 Street during the rush hours due to capacity issues at Jamaica Center. Adding another line would only exacerbate the problem.

 

What if the MTA didn't have   bullet back in 2001? Would the MTA turn back to 1986  bullet?

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean what would've happened if the bullet was already in use in 2001 or if the bullet wasn't already on the trains' sign curtains? Either way, the MTA had no intention of reverting back to split and service for the final leg of the Manhattan Bridge construction work. Answering your question, I think, the MTA decided to go with the as the Broadway-West End route because it was already available all of the B-Division trains, even if they did have to replace the sign curtains anyway because the bullet was a diamond only at the time. If it was not available on the then-current signs, the MTA may have revived the T-Broadway/West End Express designation, which was eliminated in '67.

[Around the Horn]

How? If that's the case then MTA could extend the to 179 with and with the to Jamaica Center. could go with the as well.

 

I'm not talking about delays terminating. I'm talking about having all the lines run together on the same track.

 

Also if a good chunk of the (e)s in rush hour have to go to 179 Street because Jamaica Center can't fit them all, how do you expect the (g)and to all terminate there?

 

As for your question about the , the bullet has existed on rollsigns since the late 1980's. Even if it didn't exist in 2001, they could have just added it then.

[Union Tpke]

I'm not talking about delays terminating. I'm talking about having all the lines run together on the same track.

 

Also if a good chunk of the (e)s in rush hour have to go to 179 Street because Jamaica Center can't fit them all, how do you expect the (g)and to all terminate there?

 

As for your question about the , the bullet has existed on rollsigns since the late 1980's. Even if it didn't exist in 2001, they could have just added it then.

 

Exactly, they have improvised in the past

[Take a Ride on the 1]

I'm not sure if I understand your question. Do you mean what would've happened if the bullet was already in use in 2001 or if the bullet wasn't already on the trains' sign curtains? Either way, the MTA had no intention of reverting back to split and service for the final leg of the Manhattan Bridge construction work. Answering your question, I think, the MTA decided to go with the as the Broadway-West End route because it was already available all of the B-Division trains, even if they did have to replace the sign curtains anyway because the bullet was a diamond only at the time. If it was not available on the then-current signs, the MTA may have revived the T-Broadway/West End Express designation, which was eliminated in '67.

Then why would the MTA put in the  in the first place? Why didn't they change the <W> bullet into   then? Why wasn't there   acting as Brighton Lcl for   while  could acted for   as Brighton Exp? If the MTA knew that the     route split would be confusing why would they try it in first place? I was asking what if there was no extra letter (no <W> or ) for West End line service during North Side closure from 1986-1988?

Edited August 23, 2016 by Take a Ride on the 1

[cl94]

Then why would the MTA put in the  in the first place? Why didn't they change the <W> bullet into   then? Why wasn't there   acting as Brighton Lcl for   while  could acted for   as Brighton Exp? If the MTA knew that the     route split would be confusing why would they try it in first place? I was asking what if there was no extra letter (no <W> or ) for West End line service during North Side closure from 1986-1988?

 

They implemented the split to keep designations as they were before the north side closed. 

[Lance]

Then why would the MTA put in the  in the first place? Why didn't they change the <W> bullet into   then? Why wasn't there   acting as Brighton Lcl for   while  could acted for   as Brighton Exp? If the MTA knew that the     route split would be confusing why would they try it in first place? I was asking what if there was no extra letter (no <W> or ) for West End line service during North Side closure from 1986-1988?

When the north tracks were closed in April 1986, the assumption was that the closure would last at most a few months. I don't believe it was expected that 6th Avenue service across the Manhattan Bridge would be suspended for over 18 months. If they did have any inclination of the required time-span, they may have done something different with the southern portion of the and , much as they did in 2001. You also have to consider the fact that different people were running Operations Planning department in 1986 and 2001.

[Wallyhorse]

As suggested by Kevin Walsh, Webmaster of Forgotten New York:

Underutilized infrastructure in Richmond Hill.

[Take a Ride on the 1]

Why not? via Manhattan Bridge, 6 Avenue express, to 96 Street. 47-50 Streets–Rockefeller Center has the necessary switches to make this possible. The is expendable (as shown by how quickly the MTA shuts it down when problems come up), so more frequent trains can replace the .

Don't you think sending the down 6 Av would cause a burden for traffic controllers? I mean you going see delays at Dekalb Av and then traffic controllers have to deal with . How this would look like

[Take a Ride on the 1]

Don't you think sending the down 6 Av would cause a burden for traffic controllers? I mean you going see delays at Dekalb Av and then traffic controllers have to deal with . How this would look like

would be sharing tracks with this means that Brighton line can be affected. Besides there's too much routes ranning on one line.

[checkmatechamp13]

would be sharing tracks with this means that Brighton line can be affected. Besides there's too much routes ranning on one line.

 

Like he said, the would be suspended and replaced with some extra   service.

[Take a Ride on the 1]

Like he said, the would be suspended and replaced with some extra   service.

What about express service in Brighton? What about CPW service? This means  will have to run local to take  .

 

Like I said in entire discussion have the  run via Montague St Broadway LCL with     . Then after TSQ 42 St diverge over to Express tracks.  is sharing tracks with from Dekalb Av- 47-50 Sts. That's too much service. 

[cl94]

The or would run local on CPW to make up for it. Brighton express service can be suspended by moving a couple trains over to reduce headways