RR503 Posted April 5, 2017 Share #101 Posted April 5, 2017 What Lawrence St. said; 2 routes for 1 train. Also, it's nice to avoid merges like that one; it fluidizes ops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted April 5, 2017 Share #102 Posted April 5, 2017 Censin, Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this: Have the run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express. Have the run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound trains and Forest Hills bound trains. NOTE: The would operate internally as part of the , NOT as part of the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted April 5, 2017 Share #103 Posted April 5, 2017 How would that be less confusing than making the V be the 96th street train?Either way, wherever it goes, It will be called the M, and Monday-Friday during normal M hours, it will be run to 71/Continental. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted April 5, 2017 Share #104 Posted April 5, 2017 Censin, Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this: Have the run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express. Have the run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound trains and Forest Hills bound trains. NOTE: The would operate internally as part of the , NOT as part of the . In a personal survey of teens, a lot of them don’t even remember the or . Some were shocked that there was a ! The has been gone for quite a while—enough to reassign it without problems. Keep in mind that the have all been reassigned within the last 2 decades. If maximum simplicity is desired, a to 96 Street and no changes to the is optimal. Anything else adds complexity. Or simply run the full-route 24/7. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted April 5, 2017 Share #105 Posted April 5, 2017 Yeah I've heard QP, but never 96th... 96th was definitely discussed during the community meetings 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted April 5, 2017 Share #106 Posted April 5, 2017 I stand corrected then! Mea culpa. However, it still seems easier to me for them to turn trains at QP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted April 5, 2017 Share #107 Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Censin, Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the V again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this: Have the M run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express. Have the V run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound M trains and Forest Hills bound V trains. NOTE: The V would operate internally as part of the M, NOT as part of the F. So what train will replace the during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the train during those hours. And you've got the trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the , so the trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded trains and nearly-empty trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it? And why make the operate internally as part of the if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the , then it has to use the same trains the uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains. In a personal survey of teens, a lot of them don’t even remember the V or W. If maximum simplicity is desired, a V to 96 Street and no changes to the M is optimal. Anything else adds complexity.Or simply run the M full-route 24/7. That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the as a QB local. Edited April 5, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted April 5, 2017 Share #108 Posted April 5, 2017 So what train will replace the during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the train during those hours. And you've got the trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the , so the trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded trains and nearly-empty trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it? And why make the operate internally as part of the if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the , then it has to use the same trains the uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains. That really makes the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the as a QB local. They could pull an and call them trains via Myrtle and 6 Avenues... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted April 5, 2017 Share #109 Posted April 5, 2017 They could pull an and call them trains via Myrtle and 6 Avenues... LMAO thats a bit of a stretch... The via Sea Beach thing works because the and share the Manhattan trunk. A on 6 Av, let alone Myrtle is much much more confusing. There's also the issue of having both 8 car and 10 car "Q" trains at the same stop... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted April 6, 2017 Share #110 Posted April 6, 2017 So what train will replace the during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the train during those hours. And you've got the trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the , so the trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded trains and nearly-empty trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it? And why make the operate internally as part of the if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the , then it has to use the same trains the uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains. That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the as a QB local. And this is exactly why when I made my proposals for such previously, I did so splitting the into the and with the operating as it does now and the going to 96th/2nd, both from Metropolitan Avenue (with the being a supplement to the during the week and the sole line late nights and weekends). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted April 6, 2017 Share #111 Posted April 6, 2017 And this is exactly why when I made my proposals for such previously, I did so splitting the into the and with the operating as it does now and the going to 96th/2nd, both from Metropolitan Avenue (with the being a supplement to the during the week and the sole line late nights and weekends). Not this again... 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted April 6, 2017 Share #112 Posted April 6, 2017 So what train will replace the during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the train during those hours. And you've got the trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the , so the trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded trains and nearly-empty trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it? And why make the operate internally as part of the if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the , then it has to use the same trains the uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains. That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the as a QB local. So then tell me, how are you going to run both the AND on Myrtle Avenue with the and already running at full TPH? Not just that, what about 6th Avenue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted April 6, 2017 Share #113 Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) So then tell me, how are you going to run both the AND on Myrtle Avenue with the and already running at full TPH? Not just that, what about 6th Avenue?The MTA are the ones calling for increasing both and service, so you'll have to ask them how they will manage it. I would assume that would include the during the hour(s) it runs and any additional (or ) trains. Same goes for 6th Ave with the , the current and any added (or ) trains. They're also planning to run the and local between Myrtle and Marcy during the shutdown, so the capacity must be there. With the and on a combined 12 tph for the one hour skip/stop runs during each rush hour plus the 8-9 tph the runs, you would think there would be some spare capacity for extra service. I would think 6th Ave would be a bit more difficult, given that the runs 14-15 tph during the rush, but the MTA seems confident that they can fit some additional trains. Edited April 6, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 6, 2017 Author Share #114 Posted April 6, 2017 There is room on all three major lines the travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted April 6, 2017 Share #115 Posted April 6, 2017 There is room on all three major lines the travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason. Do the and really run 10 tph? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted April 6, 2017 Share #116 Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) There is room on all three major lines the travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason. If that's the case then they can add more of everything. The whole corridor sucks in terms of frequencies and how often trains come. The runs in packs, and so does just about everything else, which means uneven crowds and long waits after those bunched up trains come. Edited April 6, 2017 by Via Garibaldi 8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted April 6, 2017 Share #117 Posted April 6, 2017 Do the and really run 10 tph?At that time, each is 5 minutes behind the next so you got a combined 12 tph there. Now if you count them individually, each is 10 mins behind the next so you got a whopping 6 tph individually. If you're waiting at a only or only stop when both are running, headways actually DECREASE during that period 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 7, 2017 Share #118 Posted April 7, 2017 If that's the case then they can add more of everything. The whole corridor sucks in terms of frequencies and how often trains come. The runs in packs, and so does just about everything else, which means uneven crowds and long waits after those bunched up trains come. Can the Willy B handle more trains? I was under the impression that due to the cabling issues on the bridge that there was a hard limit on how many trains could run. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted April 7, 2017 Share #119 Posted April 7, 2017 Can the Willy B handle more trains? I was under the impression that due to the cabling issues on the bridge that there was a hard limit on how many trains could run. I have heard that 24 trains per hour is the limit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted April 7, 2017 Share #120 Posted April 7, 2017 I have heard that 24 trains per hour is the limit. I think the currently run 21 TPH so thats only 3 more left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted May 10, 2017 Share #121 Posted May 10, 2017 I wonder if it is possible to have a shuttle bus running from Bedford Av directly to midtown via the tunnel. At least people who transfer from uptown to the now could use that, and relief the stress for and the 14th street shuttle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted May 10, 2017 Author Share #122 Posted May 10, 2017 ¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted May 10, 2017 Share #123 Posted May 10, 2017 ¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame. I actually though I was reading that wrong, but no...we have found someone worse then Wallyhorse... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted May 10, 2017 Share #124 Posted May 10, 2017 Hm. When I first read his post, I thought he meant using the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted May 10, 2017 Share #125 Posted May 10, 2017 I wonder if it is possible to have a shuttle bus running from Bedford Av directly to midtown via the tunnel. At least people who transfer from uptown to the now could use that, and relief the stress for and the 14th street shuttle. Which tunnel? You mean the Battery Tunnel? ¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame. I know some of my stuff is not well received, but unless he means the Battery Tunnel this is WAY worse than any ideas I have ever come up with. 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.