A question about 2nd Avenue Q frequency

[CHItransitFan88]

A news story about the frequency Q going down second Avenue showed up on my Facebook feed earlier. And I was wondering what are the possibilities for short-turns if 8-10 tph aren't enough. Could it run to 14th in service and then go oos and use the lower level of city hall to turn? What other possibilities be since there was some mention of issues with capacity on the bridge, and not needing the extra service in Brooklyn.

[Union Tpke]

A news story about the frequency Q going down second Avenue showed up on my Facebook feed earlier. And I was wondering what are the possibilities for short-turns if 8-10 tph aren't enough. Could it run to 14th in service and then go oos and use the lower level of city hall to turn? What other possibilities be since there was some mention of issues with capacity on the bridge, and not needing the extra service in Brooklyn.

 

Some trains could go via SAS, and service could be increased.

[Eric B]

As it is, it's reported that the dropouts will run to 96th (and then head down to City Hall Yard), but that probably won't help increase regular service. 

They could look into a third 6th Ave. local, and that could also be the local to Church Ave. if the goes express. 

[j express]

As it is, it's reported that the dropouts will run to 96th (and then head down to City Hall Yard), but that probably won't help increase regular service. 

They could look into a third 6th Ave. local, and that could also be the local to Church Ave. if the goes express. 

They can also use the tail tracks north of 96 St also. 

[Daniel The Cool]

As it is, it's reported that the dropouts will run to 96th (and then head down to City Hall Yard), but that probably won't help increase regular service. 

They could look into a third 6th Ave. local, and that could also be the local to Church Ave. if the goes express. 

With the all of the issues on 6th Avenue and congestion especially during the Rush Hours, that would not work

[MysteriousBtrain]

As it is, it's reported that the dropouts will run to 96th (and then head down to City Hall Yard), but that probably won't help increase regular service.

They could look into a third 6th Ave. local, and that could also be the local to Church Ave. if the goes express.

I'd feel better if the s ended at 72nd street. What will happen when the goes to 125? The few s go there as well?

I guess now it seems kinda dumb the MTA did not take the original 72 street plan.

[bstar1]

They could somehow revive instead from Brooklyn and Manhattan. Church Av to 96 St and 2 Av. Following most of line. Or wait until they finish Culver Station rehabs and have start from Kings Highway.

[B46 via Utica]

They could somehow revive instead from Brooklyn and Manhattan. Church Av to 96 St and 2 Av. Following most of line. Or wait until they finish Culver Station rehabs and have start from Kings Highway.

If I had a penny for every time this proposal has been posted on these forums. It won't be necessary to revived service you can simply just add extra trains to the or .

[Mysterious2train]

As it is, it's reported that the dropouts will run to 96th (and then head down to City Hall Yard), but that probably won't help increase regular service. 

 

Kinda going into crazy idea territory here, but instead of having those handful of 96th St trains deadhead to City Hall, could you have them remain in service as regular trains going southbound to Coney Island? And to ensure a net change of zero, take an equivalent number of trains that would come from Astoria, but run them as trains instead and have them drop out at Canal St so they end up at City Hall yard. Would I be correct in saying in that this would effectively allow for a few extra runs between 96 and Canal using the same equipment, and would reduce switching (compared to having the trains from Astoria cross from local to express while the deadheads switch from express to local to get from 96 to City Hall). Might be kinda confusing/frustrating to Astoria/60 St customers to have a handful of trains replaced with trains but I imagine most of those customers would be getting off by Canal St so it's no real difference to the majority. 

 

Edit: This idea really doesn't even seem that crazy to me, what I'm proposing seems to me pretty similar to the to Utica or to 179 runs, but I digress.

[Eric B]

Why switch things up like that? If you want the extra service from 96th, then you could have those (N)s run in service and drop out at Canal. But this would be after rush hour, and not when more service is needed, so there might not be much point to it.

[j express]

Why switch things up like that? If you want the extra service from 96th, then you could have those (N)s run in service and drop out at Canal. But this would be after rush hour, and not when more service is needed, so there might not be much point to it.

I assume those  putins will also start at 96 St for the p.m rush heading to Coney Island. 

[Caelestor]

No need to add more trains to 6th Ave when Broadway is not at full capacity. Just send some trains to SAS, and change the Astoria trains to , to utilize the efficient Whitehall turnaround. 

[Daniel The Cool]

Kinda going into crazy idea territory here, but instead of having those handful of 96th St trains deadhead to City Hall, could you have them remain in service as regular trains going southbound to Coney Island? And to ensure a net change of zero, take an equivalent number of trains that would come from Astoria, but run them as trains instead and have them drop out at Canal St so they end up at City Hall yard. Would I be correct in saying in that this would effectively allow for a few extra runs between 96 and Canal using the same equipment, and would reduce switching (compared to having the trains from Astoria cross from local to express while the deadheads switch from express to local to get from 96 to City Hall). Might be kinda confusing/frustrating to Astoria/60 St customers to have a handful of trains replaced with trains but I imagine most of those customers would be getting off by Canal St so it's no real difference to the majority. 

 

Edit: This idea really doesn't even seem that crazy to me, what I'm proposing seems to me pretty similar to the to Utica or to 179 runs, but I digress.

 

No because those Trains that deadheads gets stored down at City Hall Lower level until the PM Rush. And keep in mind those Trains that currently gets turned at 57th Street are crews that works the Overnight finishing up. 

[Wallyhorse]

They could somehow revive instead from Brooklyn and Manhattan. Church Av to 96 St and 2 Av. Following most of line. Or wait until they finish Culver Station rehabs and have start from Kings Highway.

Better idea there is what I've said before, and that is split the into and with the (basically additional service on top of what already is running) to 96th/2nd at 5TPH all times (except 3TPH late nights and when the shutdown happens, 6-9TPH weekends as needed). 

[Far Rock Depot]

No because those Trains that deadheads gets stored down at City Hall Lower level until the PM Rush. And keep in mind those Trains that currently gets turned at 57th Street are crews that works the Overnight finishing up.

Then theres these same sets that are put ins from City Hall that PM crews start with.

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Union Tpke]

I assume those  putins will also start at 96 St for the p.m rush heading to Coney Island. 

 

Yes, I have been told that the (N)s that go to 57th will go to 96th.

[YankeesPwnMets]

You could always keep the the same and send trains to 96 St during the rush...

[CenSin]

You could always keep the the same and send trains to 96 St during the rush...

That’s one way to sidestep the issue of Queens Boulevard being at-capacity. The ’s lower frequencies would actually mean there’s room for an . And the barely occupies a third of the 2 Avenue capacity.

 

Remember when 57 Street and then 21 Street–Queensbridge was the go-to terminal for trains that didn’t fit anywhere else? Well, 96 Street is like the new 21 Street–Queensbridge.

[trainfanrod]

2nd avenue line wont get much service it will  only favor those needing to go to broadway and west side

[Mysterious2train]

Why switch things up like that? If you want the extra service from 96th, then you could have those (N)s run in service and drop out at Canal. But this would be after rush hour, and not when more service is needed, so there might not be much point to it.

 

The switch-up was mainly to reduce switching at 34 and Canal. So that the trains from 96 would remain from the express tracks and their replacements from Astoria would stay on the local. But I guess it's not a big deal since it's only a handful of trains. And I read what Daniel wrote, I understand if that wouldn't work. But anyway, wouldn't the first couple of northbound trains get to 96 before 9 AM? That's still the height of rush hour IMO. And either way, it just boggles my mind that these 96 St trips are apparently going to be deadheading during rush hour in the peak direction (from 96 AM/to 96 PM)

[Around the Horn]

The switch-up was mainly to reduce switching at 34 and Canal. So that the trains from 96 would remain from the express tracks and their replacements from Astoria would stay on the local. But I guess it's not a big deal since it's only a handful of trains. And I read what Daniel wrote, I understand if that wouldn't work. But anyway, wouldn't the first couple of northbound trains get to 96 before 9 AM? That's still the height of rush hour IMO. And either way, it just boggles my mind that these 96 St trips are apparently going to be deadheading during rush hour in the peak direction (from 96 AM/to 96 PM)

Yeah I would run those "deadheading" (n)s in service from/to Canal Street.

[Caelestor]

Right now, 5 of the 20 NB AM peak trains terminate at Times Sq / 57 St. The MTA is aiming for the simple plan, to route 10 trains to SAS, 10 trains to Astoria, and 5 or 6 supplementary trains to Astoria. I still maintain that if SAS becomes overcrowded, then up to 5 trains will go to SAS, and existing trains departing Astoria will become trains to not overserve Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge.

[CenSin]

Yeah I would run those "deadheading" (n)s in service from/to Canal Street.

Getting passengers off the at Canal Street southbound is definitely going to hold up and trains. Letting the or go ahead is going to hold up the and trains behind that . There’s no way to do it other than to not pick up passengers at all going southbound from 96 Street.

[Eric B]

Now that the new work program has been published, it looks like some of those 96th St. WILL return to Stillwell, and not laying up at City Hall. That's strange.

 

Here are the intervals I've seen:

 

crews start 96th, then interval to STL

0845 96SA  (and WAA  at STL=L/U?)

1611 96SA

1654 96SA

 

0736 STL has lunch at 96th, then 0927 interval back to STL

0819 STL T/O WAA and signs out at CHL, so that's the layup

0901 STL then finishes there

 

Starts CIY, goes in at 86th 1538, to 96th for WAA and lunch, then 1748 interval back to STL and WAA

1501 STL has WAA at 96th and then 1641 interval back to STL

1549 STL T/O WAA for 17 min., signs out there

1644 STL   "  "                               

 

If it's because they don't need the service to Ditmars, then you would think they would send them there, and have less (W)'s instead. 

[Around the Horn]

What's the effective date for the work program?

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Also what does WAA mean?

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app