RollOver Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1751 Posted April 7, 2014 Why? You can't have the clogging up the Broadway express tracks, the Manhattan Bridge south tracks and the DeKalb junction with their regular headways. Much simpler to just have the serve all Broadway local stations and keep the together on the express tracks/bridge south tracks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrylbaniaga38 Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1752 Posted April 7, 2014 I thought about keeping the local but I forgot that there would be switching delays prince with a local and a express. Whoops... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1753 Posted April 7, 2014 Could this actually work? I thought that R142As were faster than R142s so that made them incompatible with each other Is that at Coney Island? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1754 Posted April 7, 2014 i don't think that coney island. the doors are open and it IRT. I wish somebody out there to connect manhattan to staten island with underground tubes. i know it far future from now. it would be nice to have both A and B division go to staten island with St George as first stop and tunnels more for at least 2 to 3 stops past st george. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1755 Posted April 7, 2014 I wish somebody out there to connect manhattan to staten island with underground tubes. i know it far future from now. it would be nice to have both A and B division go to staten island with St George as first stop and tunnels more for at least 2 to 3 stops past st george. 5 miles direct of underwater tunnel. Because of the approaches and the preexisting underground infrastrucure in Manhattan, approaches would add another 3+ miles to the length. Underwater section would be 65% longer than the BART tunnels under San Francisco Bay. Yeah, the ferry takes a while, but even if immersed tubes are used, you'd have to bore out the approaches. Its South Ferry station would likely have to be under the Joralemon tubes and new South Ferry (unless, of course, you connected it to SAS). We're talking one of the longest underwater transportation tunnels in the world. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenEleven Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1756 Posted April 7, 2014 Could this actually work? I thought that R142As were faster than R142s so that made them incompatible with each other You're right. That was the test consist which didn't work out for that same reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1757 Posted April 7, 2014 if the chunnel can built the subway can be built. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted April 7, 2014 Share #1758 Posted April 7, 2014 if the chunnel can built the subway can be built. No. Why? Here are two real reasons this won't take place. 1) The Channel Tunnel is a railway tunnel for high speed railroads. Railroads, and subways are different. Subway carry people to other local destinations however railroads are used to carry people from city to city, or country to country. Therefore your example is terrible. 2) A tunnel between Manhattan, and Staten Island would be so long, and so expensive that it will never work. The distance between the two islands is around 8 miles. This means that the tunnel would be as long as the Second Avenue Subway. However what makes this even more expensive is that this is underwater construction. Constructing 1 mile of underwater tunnel costs $1 billion U.S.D. which means that the tunnel you are asking to construct would literally cost $8 billion U.S.D., and to be honest no one would pay all that just for something between Staten Island, and Manhattan. If you instead proposed a tunnel between Staten Island, and Brooklyn that did be more real, and would make more sense...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbr40 Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1759 Posted April 8, 2014 it better choice to spend money rather then extending the 7 train to nj that every stupid politician want to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1760 Posted April 8, 2014 it better choice to spend money rather then extending the 7 train to nj that every stupid politician want to happen. to Jersey probably won't happen, either. It would, however, be a significantly shorter tunnel (less than 1 mile underwater as opposed to more than 6) and there's a lot less that has to be built around. 2 miles separate the SIR from 4th Avenue in Brooklyn. Much more managable than an undersea tunnel of over four times the length. It would probably be easier to send something to Brooklyn and build a new super-express line than it would be to build a direct link between SI and Manhattan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1761 Posted April 8, 2014 How well would both an and local go over with Astoria? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1762 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) They'd get over it soon enough. The better question is what does Broadway look like? If you have the N, R and W as locals with the Q as the express, you run the risk of over-serving the local. Having two locals and two expresses makes for better distribution all around. Regarding the inquiry about a mixed 142/142A consist, I think there were braking issues with that test train. I don't remember all the details, but that's why there haven't been any more mixed trains since then. The different 160s were built to operate together. Edited April 8, 2014 by Lance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1763 Posted April 8, 2014 The actually did a pretty good job with the current set up on the , and . Local customers on the Broadway Line north of Canal have a choice of either an express via bridge/4th Ave or a local via tunnel/4th Ave. Until SAS opens, I don't see any point in the at all. Plus, there isn't anything wrong with the running local in Manhattan 24/7 like many people made it out to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted April 8, 2014 Share #1764 Posted April 8, 2014 The actually did a pretty good job with the current set up on the , and . Local customers on the Broadway Line north of Canal have a choice of either an express via bridge/4th Ave or a local via tunnel/4th Ave. Until SAS opens, I don't see any point in the at all. Plus, there isn't anything wrong with the running local in Manhattan 24/7 like many people made it out to be. Yep. 2 locals are needed on Broadway. It's not like local service is all that slow and the is too delay-prone to be by itself. The ran local in Manhattan for 20 years while the bridge was being rebuilt and life went on. After SAS opens, something else has to go to Astoria because of the high ridership. Then, the can make a resurgence. Honestly, I'd be for installing crossovers south of Astoria Boulevard and having the short-turn there if it returns to reduce the delays at Ditmars. It would be like the s that terminate at Kings Highway because CI can't handle all of the trains, except only 3 blocks separate the stations. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 9, 2014 Share #1765 Posted April 9, 2014 I'm just asking about three Broadway locals because I was under the impression that the express merge to 49th St was the cause of a lot of delays. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted April 9, 2014 Share #1766 Posted April 9, 2014 It's cool bobthepanda. Also, TwoTimer, one of the transit employees that doesn't post here anymore, told us everything of why the express merge into the local north of 34th is the way it is. http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/35988-mta-heading-your-way-with-good-news/?p=558374 Plus, 49th Street is the only station for direct access to Rockefeller Center and/or Radio City Hall. If it was just the that served there instead of the additional or , it would hurt more then it would help. I know I can be wrong though... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 9, 2014 Share #1767 Posted April 9, 2014 I'm just asking about three Broadway locals because I was under the impression that the express merge to 49th St was the cause of a lot of delays. You'd eliminate one of the choke points, but the merge from the local tracks to the Bridge tracks at Canal St will still be there causing merging delays. There will always be delays on Broadway because of the way the line was designed and built. The only way you'd completely eliminate the merging problems is to run all trains from Queens local via the Tunnel and all trains from Midtown-57 St (later 96 St/2 Av) express via the Bridge. But that's impractical because you'd have too many people changing trains to avoid meandering through Lower Manhattan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
125thstreet Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1768 Posted April 11, 2014 You know what I think, I think the should be extended to Brighton and be local and for a one seat ride to lower Manhattan/ downtown brooklyn Edit: My plan in detail some J trains stored in ci yard, during the highest ridership point in the morning 12 J trains running 5 minutes apart on the local would deadhead to Brighton. They would have to enter service there on the local track without waiting for more than a minute. Then they would run local up until dekalb where they would switch to the montague line then they would take the existing path as the m used to take only till Jamaica instead of the m terminal. They would run in regular service up until 4 where they would start in Jamaica and go to Brighton. In order for this to happen some q trains would have to start at whitehall or prospect parkSent from my SPH-L710 using TapatalkSent from my iPad using TapatalkB train to Forest Hills via 6 ave express via 63rd street tunnel queen blvd local. F train back to 53rd street M train to 145th Street(weekdays, night and weekend) extend to Bedford Park Blvd during rush hours via 6av/central park local Sent from my iPad using TapatalkAnother local turned express route? Nope. Not having any of it. The express/local setup already sucks.Sent from my iPad using TapatalkI agree the Q train sucksSent from my iPad using Tapatalk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfanrod Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1769 Posted April 11, 2014 Something needs to be done about the R on 4th Avenue line it needs aditional train or something i think the z should run there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cl94 Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1770 Posted April 11, 2014 Something needs to be done about the R on 4th Avenue line it needs aditional train or something i think the z should run there We've been over this a zillion times. The did little to reduce crowding on the because nobody rode it. There aren't enough 4-car sets to send trains down to Brooklyn without reducing headways on a line that's already slow. Anything supplementing the would have to go to Midtown so there's a one-seat ride. If somebody has a little extra time and gets a seat on the local, they won't stand on a packed express train unless they have to. Montague has the capacity for extra service when it reopens, but nobody wants to go between Brooklyn and Nassau. If they have to, they can take the . 4th Avenue does need another local but the are NOT the answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biGC323232 Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1771 Posted April 11, 2014 I was wondering maybe the MTA could Extend the 3-local to South Ferry with the 1 and have the 2 be the overnight express since it is the 2nd longest route in the system 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfanrod Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1772 Posted April 11, 2014 Ok no JMor Z 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itmaybeokay Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1773 Posted April 11, 2014 I was wondering maybe the MTA could Extend the 3-local to South Ferry with the 1 and have the 2 be the overnight express since it is the 2nd longest route in the system Honestly that's not an awful idea. The drawbacks I see are: 1) The possibility of the 2 becoming more crowded as people tend to flock to the express over the local even when it offers themlimited time advantages. 2) The 2 will still be running on 20 minute headways - if there are late night delays anywhere along this very long line they will stack fast and affect the 7 av express service. 3) The stations south of Chambers St. will be overserved late nights. Not as if I have any sway in these matters, but I'd say it warrants a study. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1774 Posted April 11, 2014 It's not so much as delays would stack up. In reality, running the 2 express during the overnight hours would force riders from Brooklyn and the Bronx to transfer to the 1 or 3-local (more on that in a moment). With the trains running on 20-minute intervals, a trip could easily take much longer if a passenger misses their connection to the local/express. Regarding the idea of running the 3 local to South Ferry, it's not a bad idea in itself. It just isn't all that necessary. The reason the 3 runs as it does now (from 148 St to Times Sq) is because of simple convenience. The tracks south of Times Square make for easy turnarounds without getting in the way of other trains. It's also to provide train service to 148 St and 145 St and not have to use shuttle buses to connect to the 2-trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lupojohn Posted April 11, 2014 Share #1775 Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) It's not so much as delays would stack up. In reality, running the 2 express during the overnight hours would force riders from Brooklyn and the Bronx to transfer to the 1 or 3-local (more on that in a moment). With the trains running on 20-minute intervals, a trip could easily take much longer if a passenger misses their connection to the local/express. Regarding the idea of running the 3 local to South Ferry, it's not a bad idea in itself. It just isn't all that necessary. The reason the 3 runs as it does now (from 148 St to Times Sq) is because of simple convenience. The tracks south of Times Square make for easy turnarounds without getting in the way of other trains. It's also to provide train service to 148 St and 145 St and not have to use shuttle buses to connect to the 2-trains. Cut the wait time. 10 or 15 minutes instead of 20. Simple. Edited April 11, 2014 by lupojohn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.