Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
IAlam

How Will SAS Restructure the Broadway Line

Recommended Posts

So the (N) is basically two very different services with the same label. …kinda like some man who’s a professional white collar worker by day and a cross-dressing drag queen by night.

More like having the (N) continue to serve 60th/Lex at all times and in this case have two lines serve that station (and 59th-60th/5th) late nights.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like 60th St Tunnel can accommodate the (N)(Q)(R)yah think SAS Phase 1 & 2 could accommodate the (N)(Q) and (T) trains

 

That means that the (T) would have to run at 7-10 minute intervals for that to happen. A more frequent (T) would be needed if it wants to help out the Lexington Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like 60th St Tunnel can accommodate the (N)(Q)(R) yah think SAS Phase 1 & 2 could accommodate the (N)(Q) and (T) trains

Sorry to break your bubble but the 60th tunnel does so very badly it's services need to be consolidated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it does bad at all if the 3 lines are spaced like say 3-4 minutes apart, unless all 3 lines are immediately close to one another that is.

Edited by RollOver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it does bad at all if the 3 lines are spaced like say 3-4 minutes apart, unless all 3 lines are immediately close to one another that is.

That is the problem they are very close to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah maybe. Sometimes when I ride through the 60th Street Tube midday and evening, the congestion isn't bad at all. A few years ago, a train operator named TwoTimer stated that the (N) and (Q) often leave Astoria at 5 minute headways combined. Of course, that can change as soon as one of them enters the tube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask that cause SAS from what I read "correct me if I'm wrong" was going to be built with CBTC and 60th St Tunnel was a perfect example of having 3 lines run successfully down a two-track line, so that was a thought of the moment. If a case where SAS was branching off to the Bronx and 125th St, yeah can see running the (N)(Q)(T) up SAS; but just 125th St built, I couldn't see that happening.

Sorry to break your bubble but the 60th tunnel does so very badly it's services need to be consolidated.

Lol trust me it's no hard feelings I have my 2016 Accord :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAS will be built with 30 tph capacity.  Broadway is really messy at the moment, with one out of three (Q) trains terminating at Times Square / 57th St due to limitations at the Astoria terminal. When the extension opens, all (Q) trains will be going to SAS with 10 tph at peak, which should be enough for Phase 1. Not certain about Phase 2 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it does bad at all if the 3 lines are spaced like say 3-4 minutes apart, unless all 3 lines are immediately close to one another that is.

 

The issue isn't so much going westbound (which is manageable since the pattern in the east is not particularly difficult) but going eastbound, since you've got the mess that is the NQR setup on the Broadway Line and the Bridge/Tunnel approaches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAS will be built with 30 tph capacity.  Broadway is really messy at the moment, with one out of three (Q) trains terminating at Times Square / 57th St due to limitations at the Astoria terminal. When the extension opens, all (Q) trains will be going to SAS with 10 tph at peak, which should be enough for Phase 1. Not certain about Phase 2 though.

Interesting Is there any solution to the broadway mess?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Is there any solution to the broadway mess?

Bring back the (W). This way (Q)'s go express again and it will fix TPH on Broadway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask that cause SAS from what I read "correct me if I'm wrong" was going to be built with CBTC and 60th St Tunnel was a perfect example of having 3 lines run successfully down a two-track line, so that was a thought of the moment. If a case where SAS was branching off to the Bronx and 125th St, yeah can see running the (N)(Q)(T) up SAS; but just 125th St built, I couldn't see that happening.

Lol trust me it's no hard feelings I have my 2016 Accord :)

 

You can't have three services running on two tracks. :mellow:. At 8 trains per hour that is too little of service. It has to be at least 15 trains per hour per line to provide decent service. :(.

Edited by Roadcruiser1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why a four tracks SAS is needed!

It’s not the only reason. See how the (7) and (L) gets shut down from time to time? It happened to the (Q) too. And it’s usually because there’s no redundancy. When a pair of tracks is out of service, a while route gets truncated or shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not the only reason. See how the (7) and (L) gets shut down from time to time? It happened to the (Q) too. And it’s usually because there’s no redundancy. When a pair of tracks is out of service, a while route gets truncated or shut down.

 

Of course it is not. Additional capacity is needed to relieve the IRT East Side Line. It is extremely packed. In order to have room for a 125th Street Crosstown, a Lafayette Avenue Line, a Third Avenue Line in the Bronx and a Queens Bypass 4 tracks are needed.

Two tracks won't make up for the six lost as a result of the demolition of the Second and Third Avenue Elevated lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't have three services running on two tracks. :mellow:. At 8 trains per hour that is too little of service. It has to be at least 15 trains per hour per line to provide decent service. :(.

That is not true. The (MTA) is already doing it now with the (N), (Q) and (R) trains above 34th St, just as they did with the (N), (R) and (W) trains from 2001-10. From 1986-2004, they ran the (brownM), (N) and (R) via the Montague Tunnel and the B, D and Q ((Q), "Q-diamond," and (W) from 2001-04) over the Manhattan Bridge, regardless of which side's tracks were closed. Not saying it was the best service, or that they should continue to run three services on just two tracks, but it certainly can be done. Besides, if 15 tph is considered "decent service," then most of the B-Division is not running decent service, because most B-Division lines run much less than 15 tph.

 

And in the case of 2nd Ave, they certainly shouldn't run three services above 72nd St, because that will severely limit how often the (T) would be able to run during the rush.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why a four tracks SAS is needed!

 

The issue with a four track SAS is that the four tracks have to go somewhere. It wouldn't really be useful to have a four track terminal at Hanover Sq or at 125 St or wherever the hell else you could put one if the trains aren't going to go past it. For what current plans exist, it's fine; two services going to Harlem/the Bronx, two services going to Downtown/Brooklyn is fine.

That is not true. The (MTA) is already doing it now with the (N), (Q) and (R) trains above 34th St, just as they did with the (N), (R) and (W) trains from 2001-10. From 1986-2004, they ran the (brownM), (N) and (R) via the Montague Tunnel and the B, D and Q ( (Q), "Q-diamond," and (W) from 2001-04) over the Manhattan Bridge, regardless of which side's tracks were closed. Not saying it was the best service, but it certainly can be done. Besides, if 15 tph is considered "decent service," then most of the B-Division is not running decent service, because most B-Division lines run much less than 15 tph.

 

And in the case of 2nd Ave, they certainly shouldn't run three services above 72nd St, because that will severely limit how often the (T) would be able to run during the rush.

 

I believe the point was that the (N)(Q)(R) setup was suboptimal; we should really be avoiding that whenever possible.

You can't have three services running on two tracks. :mellow:. At 8 trains per hour that is too little of service. It has to be at least 15 trains per hour per line to provide decent service. :(.

 

You can split 30 TPH 3 ways and that's fine; 10TPH will do for most branches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh (MTA) what were you thinking 70 years ago when you we're tearing down the Second Av El....

They were thinking of building the SAS, but didn't see the Great Depression, WWI, WWII, or the budget crisis coming.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the point was that the (N)(Q)(R) setup was suboptimal; we should really be avoiding that whenever possible.

You won't get any disagreement from me about that. The current (N)(Q)(R) setup is indeed suboptimal. From my own experience and the (MTA) 's own subway service alerts, it's this very section that's a major source of the Broadway Line's unreliability. But if we go back to the service pattern, pre-2010 budget cuts, then we will still have three lines sharing two tracks above 34th - the (N)(R)(W). Perhaps without (N) trains using the Prince St switches on weekdays, it will be somewhat better than the current setup. "Perhaps" is the key word.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh (MTA) what were you thinking 70 years ago when you we're tearing down the Second Av El....

 

you mean the board of transportation? It later became NYCTA in 1953, and finally the MTA in 1968. Get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't get any disagreement from me about that. The current (N)(Q)(R) setup is indeed suboptimal. From my own experience and the (MTA) 's own subway service alerts, it's this very section that's a major source of the Broadway Line's unreliability. But if we go back to the service pattern, pre-2010 budget cuts, then we will still have three lines sharing two tracks above 34th - the (N)(R)(W). Perhaps without (N) trains using the Prince St switches on weekdays, it will be somewhat better than the current setup. "Perhaps" is the key word.

 

Out of curioisity, why don't Astoria/Broadway express trains use the switches north of 57th to get to/from the express track? What was need for the (N) to switch to the local at 34th pre-2010? Assuming that the (W) returns when the (Q) goes up 2nd Ave, the (N) and (Q) are express all the way and the (R) and (W) are the locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curioisity, why don't Astoria/Broadway express trains use the switches north of 57th to get to/from the express track? What was need for the (N) to switch to the local at 34th pre-2010? Assuming that the (W) returns when the (Q) goes up 2nd Ave, the (N) and (Q) are express all the way and the (R) and (W) are the locals.

 

Astoria riders want service to 49th St, so all 15 tph to / from Ditmars Blvd must stop there. Thus, the (N) switches over btwn 42nd and 34th Sts.

 

You won't get any disagreement from me about that. The current (N)(Q)(R) setup is indeed suboptimal. From my own experience and the (MTA) 's own subway service alerts, it's this very section that's a major source of the Broadway Line's unreliability. But if we go back to the service pattern, pre-2010 budget cuts, then we will still have three lines sharing two tracks above 34th - the (N)(R)(W). Perhaps without (N) trains using the Prince St switches on weekdays, it will be somewhat better than the current setup. "Perhaps" is the key word.

 

Honestly, it probably will be, since (N) and (Q) trains won't arrive at 34th St simultaneously anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.