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.
GojiMet86

Byford: ‘Overcrowding’ Is Not at the Root of Delays

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jdog14 said:

Basically all the Broadway service and the 6th ave express service has the frequency restricted partially cause of that one interlocking (and broadway also has the 59th tube to deal with) 

I totally get it but the crowds aren't going to stop coming.  6th Avenue seems to be neglected in several ways.  Run down filthy stations, mainly older cars and a lack of service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I can actually take the 6th Avenue line, but I haven't in some time during the week because of the crowding and long waits.  Waiting for the (B) used to work because everyone clamored for the (D), but then people started taking the (B) more because the (D) has become insanely crowded, so now there's no escaping to anything. With the way that the (D) crawls "express" and how long you wait for one, taking the (B) local isn't that big of a deal.  

There where a few times ive taken a (B) over a (D) at 34 st...And the (D) didnt past us until like 110 st...So yeah  sometimes taken the (B) can save you time over the (D) depending on your destination...Me personally if i feel like an local can overtake an express (and it does happens) ill simply just use it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah and that's what is becoming extremely annoying.  There was a man on the news yesterday that said it used to take him 30 - 35 minutes. That same commute is now over an hour because of delays, waits and overcrowding.  I've had times where I've been so irate that I've just taken an express train and then backtracked from 86th and Lex down to 79th and York, which is a PITA.  Regarding the (F), believe it or not, it's fairly common to see what you described above, and I've seen it so many times at 47-50th street and elsewhere that I've lost count.  For the life of me, I can't understand how they can't run more express trains.  You're running 5-6 (F) trains and then let's say 3 (M) trains in a span of 10 - 15 minutes (and yes it's that frequent because the (F) and (M) run just like that), and meanwhile you're lucky to get one (D) train and maybe a (B) right behind it and then nothing.  There is something very wrong with that, and the crowding that is now taking place on the 6th Avenue line is insane.  I have meetings uptown now and one is during the week. I am dreading how I'm going to get up there. I may opt for Metro-North up to 125th and then get a subway from there.  That is actually a good set up because just about every line on the west side is just packed to no end and you crawl all the way uptown.

I may do many things the average commuter doesn't/won't (especially regarding buses), but any commute that entails intentionally backtracking is something I flat out refuse to do, bus or train.... It's the thought of it, more so than the act itself.... That "one step ferrrrd & 2 steps beck" bit doesn't fly with me... It's another reason why I don't take the subway like that on weekends.....

It's why I get on people that don't see an issue with the cutting of local service to support "faster" service (again, regardless of mode)....

1 hour ago, biGC323232 said:

There where a few times ive taken a (B) over a (D) at 34 st...And the (D) didnt past us until like 110 st...So yeah  sometimes taken the (B) can save you time over the (D) depending on your destination...Me personally if i feel like an local can overtake an express (and it does happens) ill simply just use it....

I've long gotten over the "express-a-holic" mindset.... There's been several people on this forum that have stated that B's/C's simply move at a better rate than A's/D's along CPW....

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VIP said:

The (7) is The shortest line of the IRT. Why is 506 cars necessary? The (6) needs 450-500 cars. And the “odd ball” R142A’s that is left over and OOS at westchester needs to be placed back onto (6) service. I see no sense in keeping a perfectly good NTT set in storage for no justifiable reason. Also How would the R188 order cause a car shortage when there’s 8 additional full R188 factory sets?? With this swap, the (6) should have gotten a surplus of R62A’s and as far as sending their R142A’s to the (4) was pointless. The (4) didn’t need extra cars or spares. The (MTA) wanted to uniform the IRT yards and shitted on the (6) ... the (Q) to 96th Street didn’t take much ridership off the Lexington Avenue Line... most people are trying to get to 103-125 Streets.

Well for starters. The (7) uses 11 cars per train ad opposed to 10 cars.

I do find it that it was a dumb idea to take the R142A's off the (6) since now we have shitty service on that line.

And there are 8 additional R188 sets? Where?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

I may do many things the average commuter doesn't/won't (especially regarding buses), but any commute that entails intentionally backtracking is something I flat out refuse to do, bus or train.... It's the thought of it, more so than the act itself.... That "one step ferrrrd & 2 steps beck" bit doesn't fly with me... It's another reason why I don't take the subway like that on weekends.....

It's why I get on people that don't see an issue with the cutting of local service to support "faster" service (again, regardless of mode)....

I've long gotten over the "express-a-holic" mindset.... There's been several people on this forum that have stated that B's/C's simply move at a better rate than A's/D's along CPW....

There are times where if you're going to 163rd Street, it's quicker to take/stay on the (A) to 168th and backtrack one stop on the (C)  ( or walk back) than to wait for 10-15 mins for a northbound (C) to show up. Before, you had no idea where the (C) was, but now with Subwaytime you can make an informed decision.

As for faster locals, it's silly. You'll have the local going at full speed, but the adjacent express tracks same tunnel, grade changes and turns have timers? 

And time wise, on 8th Ave, sometimes the countdown says an (A) is 12-20  mins away, and obviously the locals would be quicker, unless you're going past 168th Street or Euclid Ave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

There are times where if you're going to 163rd Street, it's quicker to take/stay on the (A) to 168th and backtrack one stop on the (C)  ( or walk back) than to wait for 10-15 mins for a northbound (C) to show up. Before, you had no idea where the (C) was, but now with Subwaytime you can make an informed decision.

As for faster locals, it's silly. You'll have the local going at full speed, but the adjacent express tracks same tunnel, grade changes and turns have timers? 

And time wise, on 8th Ave, sometimes the countdown says an (A) is 12-20  mins away, and obviously the locals would be quicker, unless you're going past 168th Street or Euclid Ave.

Oh, I'm not doubting any advantages that comes from such a practice, but again, it's something I personally refuse to do .... The general idea of having to go backward to go forward with... anything, gets under my skin....

I agree that it's silly.. But what are you to do when locals run unimpeded (aside from delays) & expresses are purposefully slowed down (separate from any delays) for w/e the reason? It's something I started to notice within the subway system a long ago...

The countdown clocks I don't pay attention to anymore.... Straight up window dressing... Nothing like seeing a train that's said to be arriving in 5 minutes - for the past 10 minutes..... I have NEVER seen the amount of waiting time on the countdown clock increase; it just stalls... Which is misleading.

Edited by B35 via Church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Oh, I'm not doubting any advantages that comes from such a practice, but again, it's something I personally refuse to do .... The general idea of having to go backward to go forward with... anything, gets under my skin....

I agree that it's silly.. But what are you to do when locals run unimpeded (aside from delays) & expresses are purposefully slowed down (separate from any delays) for w/e the reason? It's something I started to notice within the subway system a long ago...

The countdown clocks I don't pay attention to anymore.... Straight up window dressing... Nothing like seeing a train that's said to be arriving in 5 minutes - for the past 10 minutes..... I have NEVER seen the amount of waiting time on the countdown clock increase; it just stalls... Which is misleading.

Another example is the QBL. If I'm going to Jamaica from Queens Center Mall/Target, I find that it's quicker to backtrack to Roosevelt Ave, because of the local conga line at 71st Ave.

I believe I've seen the count down clock increase before. They've been more accurate as of late.

Why did they purposely slow down the express trains, is it to reduce the wear and tear on the tracks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also cautiously optimistic about Byford. So far he has been saying all the correct things.

I sent him an email before he arrived, waited a month without any response. So I sent it a second time. Guess what? I received a very nice personal response within an hour. A friend of mine who also sent him an e-mail also received a personal response in an hour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Well for starters. The (7) uses 11 cars per train ad opposed to 10 cars.

I do find it that it was a dumb idea to take the R142A's off the (6) since now we have shitty service on that line.

And there are 8 additional R188 sets? Where?

 

Um did you forget 7811-7898? That’s eight 11-car sets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, VIP said:

The (7) is The shortest line of the IRT. Why is 506 cars necessary? The (6) needs 450-500 cars. And the “odd ball” R142A’s that is left over and OOS at westchester needs to be placed back onto (6) service. I see no sense in keeping a perfectly good NTT set in storage for no justifiable reason. Also How would the R188 order cause a car shortage when there’s 8 additional full R188 factory sets?? With this swap, the (6) should have gotten a surplus of R62A’s and as far as sending their R142A’s to the (4) was pointless. The (4) didn’t need extra cars or spares. The (MTA) wanted to uniform the IRT yards and shitted on the (6) ... the (Q) to 96th Street didn’t take much ridership off the Lexington Avenue Line... most people are trying to get to 103-125 Streets.

with 11-car trains on the (7), 506/11 = 46 11-car trains, which include 36 for daily Rush Hour (7) service and 10 spare trains to increase the spare factor

The (6) should have 460 cars at least, I agree, to provide at least 38 trains for daily service and at least 8 spare trains, but there are not enough cars for the additional service. The reduction to the (6) was to ensure that the (2)(4) and (5) had a higher spare factor and enough trains to make their scheduled runs and account for the ~30% on time efficiency of these lines without causing missed headways. The (6) was just thrown under the bus for being local. Until additional cars are ordered to replace the R62/R62A cars, we're stuck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so happy I am not the only one who thought the (6) has recently become horrendous! I literally have been complaining to their Twitter account on the daily about the type of headways they have been running. Every single morning, especially over the last month, trains during rush hour on the Pelham Local line in the Bronx have been 10+ minutes! The platform is packed with people. I’ve lived off this line for almost 5 years and I’ve never seen such a horrible reduction in service levels as I have lately.

You think Manhattan service on the (6) is bad, try living at a local stop on the Bronx. They literally will run three <6> express trains, 2-3 minutes apart, to a single (6) local no matter what time of day it is! It just recently got better in the PM rush after I complained about waiting 15+ minutes almost every day at the same time for an uptown (6) local and watched 3-4 empty <6> run by at 3Av-138th. 

 

Now it’s the morning rush, and you’ll see these multiple <6> express trains go by with literally no one on them. Meanwhile, the rest of the local platforms are packed beyond belief, specifically in the AM. And if there’s any sort of delay, like a 10 minute wait for one followed by a 12-13 minute for the next, they will make it run express via the local track and skip your stop. You then get to wait longer just to get on a train that everyone else at local stops is waiting on, and it’s completely packed! Then by the time you get to 3Av-138th going to Manhattan, you’re almost always passed by another <6> express that beats you into the station and gets first dibs on leaving, where you sit and wait for it to cross over and the switch to change so we can leave. It literally will take me 20+ minutes sometimes to get from Cypress Av, to 125th with the way they handle local (6) service in the Bronx. They constantly screw over their local customers. It’s horredous.

If there really is a train shortage, then I think the last thing they should be doing in the AM is continuing to short-turn trains at 3Av-138th, or run more local then express to make up for it. The gaps it creates, specifically when there are delays anywhere along the line, has cascading effects in the Bronx. You’ll never get anywhere.

I also take the line further up into the Bronx and typically they run every 3-6 minutes uptown, opposite of the peak direction in the morning. But, the last few weeks I’ve gotten to the station and seen 15-18 minute headways. They just don’t get it, I swear it’s like there has been nobody behind the wheel at the Rail Control Center seeing these gaps and trying to mitigate them. And if you try to tweet to them or contact them, you won’t hear a peep - or even better - they’ll wait 15 minutes to respond to tell you there is a train 2 minutes away. The same train you were complaining you were waiting 20 minutes for.

Sorry, I had to vent about this once I saw other people complaining, I feel like I complain to them on the daily and no one is listening or acknowledging there is a problem with (6) service!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PMac18 said:

I am so happy I am not the only one who thought the (6) has recently become horrendous! I literally have been complaining to their Twitter account on the daily about the type of headways they have been running. Every single morning, especially over the last month, trains during rush hour on the Pelham Local line in the Bronx have been 10+ minutes! The platform is packed with people. I’ve lived off this line for almost 5 years and I’ve never seen such a horrible reduction in service levels as I have lately.

You think Manhattan service on the (6) is bad, try living at a local stop on the Bronx. They literally will run three <6> express trains, 2-3 minutes apart, to a single (6) local no matter what time of day it is! It just recently got better in the PM rush after I complained about waiting 15+ minutes almost every day at the same time for an uptown (6) local and watched 3-4 empty <6> run by at 3Av-138th. 

 

Now it’s the morning rush, and you’ll see these multiple <6> express trains go by with literally no one on them. Meanwhile, the rest of the local platforms are packed beyond belief, specifically in the AM. And if there’s any sort of delay, like a 10 minute wait for one followed by a 12-13 minute for the next, they will make it run express via the local track and skip your stop. You then get to wait longer just to get on a train that everyone else at local stops is waiting on, and it’s completely packed! Then by the time you get to 3Av-138th going to Manhattan, you’re almost always passed by another <6> express that beats you into the station and gets first dibs on leaving, where you sit and wait for it to cross over and the switch to change so we can leave. It literally will take me 20+ minutes sometimes to get from Cypress Av, to 125th with the way they handle local (6) service in the Bronx. They constantly screw over their local customers. It’s horredous.

If there really is a train shortage, then I think the last thing they should be doing in the AM is continuing to short-turn trains at 3Av-138th, or run more local then express to make up for it. The gaps it creates, specifically when there are delays anywhere along the line, has cascading effects in the Bronx. You’ll never get anywhere.

I also take the line further up into the Bronx and typically they run every 3-6 minutes uptown, opposite of the peak direction in the morning. But, the last few weeks I’ve gotten to the station and seen 15-18 minute headways. They just don’t get it, I swear it’s like there has been nobody behind the wheel at the Rail Control Center seeing these gaps and trying to mitigate them. And if you try to tweet to them or contact them, you won’t hear a peep - or even better - they’ll wait 15 minutes to respond to tell you there is a train 2 minutes away. The same train you were complaining you were waiting 20 minutes for.

Sorry, I had to vent about this once I saw other people complaining, I feel like I complain to them on the daily and no one is listening or acknowledging there is a problem with (6) service!

Excellent post.  I haven't been feeling so well, but we have to start going to the board meetings and raising hell because this is unacceptable and there is some BS going on here and they're trying to skate around it.  I also tweeted about what is going on with the (6) train and not one response.  They haven't been meeting their own schedules in God knows when and they need to be held accountable. It's that simple.  The kind of waits and overcrowding that I've been seeing on the line is just unacceptable and downright dangerous.  There should be no reason why staircases have to be closed off because the platforms are so overcrowded because of such extensive waits for the (6) train, and yes there seems to be no sort of rhyme or reason anymore with the (6). They come when they feel like sending a train, then I suppose you should feel lucky to get one while several (4)(5) trains pass by and dump loads and loads of people onto the (6) platform.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:19 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They're going to have to address the issue sooner rather than later. 

Yes, they will have to. Yet they continue to kick the can down the road on this issue.

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 11:24 AM, Jdog14 said:

Basically all the Broadway service and the 6th ave express service has the frequency restricted partially cause of that one interlocking (and broadway also has the 59th tube to deal with) 

Amazing how that one interlocking and that one set of tubes can cause such a ripple effect on the rest of the B Division. Though really, the Broadway Line's problem is the weekday (N) being a hybrid express/local that switches at 34th (well, 59th's all-too-frequent signal problems aren't doing it any favors). 

But just bring up the mere suggestion of detangling DeKalb Junction or getting rid of the 34th St merge and watch how fast you get blowback from people afraid of losing their one-seat rides (yet they'll be quick to complain when the service shits all over itself). It may not be the solution. I don't profess to know what is the ultimate solution. But Transit really needs to get serious about looking at why the delays (signal, mechanical, FDNY/NYPD have become so frequent) and come up with real solutions to solve them. And fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is so much pushback with DeKalb Junction because it would force too many transfers to actually be a viable solution. I'm blanking on the proposed setup (was it (B)(D) via Brighton, (N)(Q) via Sea Beach/West End?), but if you're forcing the bulk of riders to transfer at Atlantic Av or DeKalb Av, will they really save that much time?

Regarding the Broadway weaving, I'm actually for straightening out the services where all Queens services run local via Whitehall and expresses from 96 Street run express via the Bridge. It's five stops spread out between four express stations. If those merges are removed, the all of the Broadway services will speed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But just bring up the mere suggestion of detangling DeKalb Junction or getting rid of the 34th St merge and watch how fast you get blowback from people afraid of losing their one-seat rides (yet they'll be quick to complain when the service shits all over itself). 

First off, I'm fairly certain nobody is opposed to making the (N) run sensibly, as long as the other factors (frequency on 2 Av, Astoria, and Queens Blvd) are considered. Anyway, now to the main point.

 

Unless you have actual evidence to back up your statement regarding complaints, I'm inclined to believe that opponents of deinterlining southern Brooklyn are less likely to endlessly complain about delays and service. If a line has services to more than one trunk, then it means passengers on that line have alternatives in the event that something happens, which means they can still get to their destination within a reasonable amount of time. Not every line is Queens Blvd where the line goes to hell every other day, or 4th Avenue Local where the (R) is supposed to run 10 TPH but really runs about 5. In some areas, the (MTA) actually provides decent service, which isn't particularly complaint-worthy.

Lastly, it's high time that the deinterlining camp provided some actual statistics. What are the maximum TPH levels that can be run on the current DeKalb Junction services? How would those numbers change with de-interlining? Don't forget to consider terminal capacity!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lance said:

I think there is so much pushback with DeKalb Junction because it would force too many transfers to actually be a viable solution. I'm blanking on the proposed setup (was it (B)(D) via Brighton, (N)(Q) via Sea Beach/West End?), but if you're forcing the bulk of riders to transfer at Atlantic Av or DeKalb Av, will they really save that much time?

Regarding the Broadway weaving, I'm actually for straightening out the services where all Queens services run local via Whitehall and expresses from 96 Street run express via the Bridge. It's five stops spread out between four express stations. If those merges are removed, the all of the Broadway services will speed up.

Agreed about Broadway, but DeKalb would allow a cross-platform transfer from Brighton to the Broadway Local.  Yes, it's running via Montague, but except for Canal, it's really only the Broadway Local stops south of 14th that Brighton riders would not be within walking distance of if all their trains went to 6th Avenue.

My ideal Broadway / 6th Avenue pattern would be:
(B) 6 Avenue - Brighton Express and (D) 6 Avenue Express - Brighton Local

(N) 2 Avenue - Broadway Express - Sea Beach and (Q) 2 Avenue - Broadway Express - West End

(R) Astoria - Broadway Local - 4 Avenue Local and (W) Astoria - Whitehall

The only severely affected station pairs (i.e. where two corresponding stations are not near one another) are Canal and Grand Sts, and West 4th and Union Square.

3 hours ago, P3F said:

Lastly, it's high time that the deinterlining camp provided some actual statistics. What are the maximum TPH levels that can be run on the current DeKalb Junction services? How would those numbers change with de-interlining? Don't forget to consider terminal capacity!

I'm going to try with this, as a proud member of the deinterlining camp. I'm going to use AM rush-hour numbers and assume the capacity of a pair of tracks to be 30TPH in either direction, unless otherwise noted. If I'm correct, that is the upper limit of NYCT's standard block signalling. Let's start with terminal capacity:

96th Street/2nd Avenue is woefully underused as a terminal. The layout (high-speed crossover, tail tracks) suggests it could probably turn 30 (or more) TPH at rush hours. According to the MTA's most recent (Q) schedule, there are only about 10 TPH running there right now.

The (N)(W) each run 7 TPH at rush hours now, for a total of 14 an hour out of Astoria. Astoria's layout suggests it could handle about 20, in line with similar two-track terminals.

The (R)  is currently capped at 10 TPH by the constraints of the Forest Hills terminal, but Bay Ridge could probably also handle 20 TPH, similar to 14th and 8th pre-CBTC.

The (B) and (D) run a combined 14 TPH during rush hour.

The grand total for DeKalb Junction under today's service pattern is 41 TPH, approximately one train every 90 seconds. I haven't factored in the handful of (W)s that go to Brooklyn. And if I remember correctly, DeKalb is at capacity now. That's why Transit can't add more (Q)s to serve SAS and instead has to reroute (N)s and (R)s.

Now, let's do the same thing again, but with de-interlined services:

30 TPH will run on SAS and the Broadway Express - that's 15 (N)s and 15 (Q)s every hour, adding 5 TPH to the Q and doubling (N) service.

The (R)(W) will run a combined 20 TPH out of Astoria. Unfortunately, this doesn't increase (R) service in Brooklyn unless the (W) is extended. (at which point we might as well ditch the (W) label again and call all the Astoria-Bay Ridge trains (R)s). Long-term, the switches at Ditmars could be realigned, or Astoria Blvd could be made a terminal to allow for 30 TPH on Astoria/Broadway/Fourth Avenue.

The (B) and (D) can run a combined 30, leaving Brighton local riders 15 (D)s and express riders 15 (B)s every hour - a 2x increase on the express and +5 TPH on the local. Norwood, Coney Island, and Brighton Beach can definitely turn 15. Bedford Park I'm not sure about, but some (B)s could either be extended to Norwood or short-turned at 145 if need be.

Under a de-interlined system with the (W) still ending at Whitehall, 70 TPH are going through DeKalb. With the (W)'s 10 TPH going to Brooklyn as well, 80 TPH can go through DeKalb. That's a train every 45 seconds and twice as many as now.

TL, DR: De-interlining the system lets us make more effective use of terminals that are, as of now, underused, and gets twice as many trains between Manhattan and Brooklyn during peak travel times. The most important part, for me, though, is the cost. Could we get these numbers by rebuilding DeKalb Junction? Maybe - but de-interlining wouldn't cost very much, certainly nothing in comparison to rebuilding junctions.

4 hours ago, P3F said:

Unless you have actual evidence to back up your statement regarding complaints, I'm inclined to believe that opponents of deinterlining southern Brooklyn are less likely to endlessly complain about delays and service.

Perhaps. There are some disadvantages to this, though mostly rectifiable ones. I'll lay them out:

1. While Broadway and 6th Avenue are very close through Midtown, they are separated through Lower Manhattan - see above. Long-term, this could be partially alleviated with an infill express stop at 14th and 6th, which apparently there are provisions for.

2. The QBL local - taking the (R) away leaves a vacuum that the (M) can only partially fill, especially with its 8-car trains and its Williamsburg Bridge capacity crunch. A future solution would be 1. 63rd Street-Second Avenue service to replace the (R), and/or 2. speeding up the Willy B crossing to allow more (M)s, now that it has more room at Forest Hills. Please don't suggest a resurrection of the (G) on QB. People don't want it. It's an ineffective service.

3. The (R) will have to be moved to 36th Street Yard - though apparently this is happening, at least partially, to allow (T)s to stable at Jamaica. Not really a disadvantage, just a consideration.

4. The rolling stock for this doesn't exist right now - though apparently Concourse has a surplus, so deploying more R68s could at least make some of this work.

That's all. Apologies for the novel-length post.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PMac18

I understand the frustration, but neither of those suggestions are really things that should be done when there's a car shortage. Taking the trips that short-turn at 3 Av during the AM Rush and extending them to Parkchester or elsewhere will make those trips longer and require more trainsets. Which is what the problem looks to be, the line doesn't have enough trainsets. Doing that would just create gaps in downtown service in Manhattan in the slots currently filled by the short-turns. Screwing over Manhattan riders for the benefit of Bronx local riders. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. When there's a big delay, of course normal dispatching and scheduling goes out the window but what to do with short-turns on a case like that should be a case-by-case basis. Taking some express trips and running them local will also increase the time they take to get from end to end, which could end up increasing fleet requirements.

This next part isn't directed at just you, but in general. I've seen people saying that scheduled (6) service has been reduced. Which I can't find any evidence to support. I pulled up this (6) schedule from 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20130117184622/http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t6cur.pdf) and it looks virtually the same as the current schedule: http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t6cur.pdf Also, looking at the detailed trip-by-trip schedule on Trip Planner, service is still scheduled for every 2 minutes during the height of the AM rush hour

Northbound: http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=N&operator=SUB&route=6&inputDate=02/28/18&direction=N&type=W

Southbound: http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=S&operator=SUB&route=6&inputDate=02/28/18&direction=S&type=W

Quote

kw9lHOS.png

(As a side note, I actually had no idea that some AM Rush trips started at E Tremont Av before reading this detailed schedule)

The real issue is a failure to meet scheduled service. Whether it's due to the lack of available R62A trainsets or lack of available crews, or something else entirely. The timetable itself appears to be unchanged and not the issue. Notably, ever since the MTA started including "% Service Delivered" statistics a few months ago, during weekday rush hours the (6) has almost always ranked near the bottom*. This shows that the MTA is failing to run the amount of service that's scheduled.

(* - shoutout to my home (2) and (5) lines for being the only lines consistently worse than the (6) at Weekday % service delivered)

Quote

PApsV7g.png

Quote

NS2Dibu.png

I know saying " (6) service is coming less frequently" and " (6) service was reduced" sound almost the same, but they are not the same, and saying that scheduled (6) service was reduced when it looks like it actually was not (unless someone can show the MTA implemented a supplement schedule or something) obscures the real issue: Failure to make scheduled service.

 

52 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I'm going to try with this, as a proud member of the deinterlining camp. I'm going to use AM rush-hour numbers and assume the capacity of a pair of tracks to be 30TPH in either direction, unless otherwise noted. If I'm correct, that is the upper limit of NYCT's standard block signalling. Let's start with terminal capacity:

96th Street/2nd Avenue is woefully underused as a terminal. The layout (high-speed crossover, tail tracks) suggests it could probably turn 30 (or more) TPH at rush hours. According to the MTA's most recent (Q) schedule, there are only about 10 TPH running there right now.

The (N)(W) each run 7 TPH at rush hours now, for a total of 14 an hour out of Astoria. Astoria's layout suggests it could handle about 20, in line with similar two-track terminals.

The (R)  is currently capped at 10 TPH by the constraints of the Forest Hills terminal, but Bay Ridge could probably also handle 20 TPH, similar to 14th and 8th pre-CBTC.

The (B) and (D) run a combined 14 TPH during rush hour.

The grand total for DeKalb Junction under today's service pattern is 41 TPH, approximately one train every 90 seconds. I haven't factored in the handful of (W)s that go to Brooklyn. And if I remember correctly, DeKalb is at capacity now. That's why Transit can't add more (Q)s to serve SAS and instead has to reroute (N)s and (R)s.

 

Wait a sec. You're checking southbound, right? Because going northbound, around Atlantic/DeKalb, from ~7:45 to 8:40 AM, the height of rush hour, the (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) are all running every 6 mins/10 TPH each (although the northbound  (R) becomes a little less frequent around 8:30 AM, a bit sooner than the other lines). So there's almost 50 TPH northbound passing through that junction during that hour. I've heard that all trains coming to/from the bridge have to come to a complete stop as they're identified and routed correctly, can somebody verify that? I imagine that's caused by a lack of precise train identification technology (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) and it contributes partially to delays at that junction. But if that's the case, that's something that will be rectified someday as technology improves.

Edited by Mysterious2train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on, isn't one of the issues that northbound, the Brighton Line track lines up with 6th Avenue service, while the 4th Avenue track lines up with Broadway service, but southbound, the opposite is true? So wouldn't any "deinterlining" just result in all trains crossing over in the opposite direction?

In principle, I'm not opposed to deinterlining. It's not too different from the situation with the (A)(C) and (B)(D) in Upper Manhattan (where worse-case scenario, you can just walk a few blocks). But what I mentioned above means all you're doing is shifting the problem around (arguably, maybe if you get rid of the problem in the AM rush, maybe it makes the situation slightly better overall, since Brooklyn-bound, there's no more instances of trains needing to cross in front of each other, whereas Manhattan-bound, you still have the switches at Columbus Circle and Times Square to deal with).

The only somewhat major issue is that beyond Midtown, the (B)(D) go to the UWS/Harlem and The Bronx, while the (N) goes to Astoria and the (Q) goes to the UES, but that can be solved with a quick transfer at Herald Square (the back of both the 6th Avenue and Broadway platforms is by 32nd Street, which makes it easier than Atlantic Avenue)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Hold on, isn't one of the issues that northbound, the Brighton Line track lines up with 6th Avenue service, while the 4th Avenue track lines up with Broadway service, but southbound, the opposite is true? So wouldn't any "deinterlining" just result in all trains crossing over in the opposite direction?

You're right about the track layout. However, this won't create any train conflicts. By routing all trains from the south side of the bridge (Broadway) to the Fourth Avenue express, (N) and (Q) trains have a grade-separated crossing over the north side tracks from 6th Avenue to Brighton. Although the 6th Avenue tracks don't align straight with Brighton (a switch is necessary), the tracks that those trains will cross into (the Broadway-Brighton track that the (Q) uses) will be unused because all (Q)s will be going down the express. I'm not sure if this makes sense in writing, but it will on a track map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mysterious2train said:

@PMac18

I understand the frustration, but neither of those suggestions are really things that should be done when there's a car shortage. Taking the trips that short-turn at 3 Av during the AM Rush and extending them to Parkchester or elsewhere will make those trips longer and require more trainsets. Which is what the problem looks to be, the line doesn't have enough trainsets. Doing that would just create gaps in downtown service in Manhattan in the slots currently filled by the short-turns. Screwing over Manhattan riders for the benefit of Bronx local riders. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. When there's a big delay, of course normal dispatching and scheduling goes out the window but what to do with short-turns on a case like that should be a case-by-case basis. Taking some express trips and running them local will also increase the time they take to get from end to end, which could end up increasing fleet requirements.

This next part isn't directed at just you, but in general. I've seen people saying that scheduled (6) service has been reduced. Which I can't find any evidence to support. I pulled up this (6) schedule from 2013 (https://web.archive.org/web/20130117184622/http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t6cur.pdf) and it looks virtually the same as the current schedule: http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/t6cur.pdf Also, looking at the detailed trip-by-trip schedule on Trip Planner, service is still scheduled for every 2 minutes during the height of the AM rush hour

Northbound: http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=N&operator=SUB&route=6&inputDate=02/28/18&direction=N&type=W

Southbound: http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=S&operator=SUB&route=6&inputDate=02/28/18&direction=S&type=W

(As a side note, I actually had no idea that some AM Rush trips started at E Tremont Av before reading this detailed schedule)

The real issue is a failure to meet scheduled service. Whether it's due to the lack of available R62A trainsets or lack of available crews, or something else entirely. The timetable itself appears to be unchanged and not the issue. Notably, ever since the MTA started including "% Service Delivered" statistics a few months ago, during weekday rush hours the (6) has almost always ranked near the bottom*. This shows that the MTA is failing to run the amount of service that's scheduled.

(* - shoutout to my home (2) and (5) lines for being the only lines consistently worse than the (6) at Weekday % service delivered)

I know saying " (6) service is coming less frequently" and " (6) service was reduced" sound almost the same, but they are not the same, and saying that scheduled (6) service was reduced when it looks like it actually was not (unless someone can show the MTA implemented a supplement schedule or something) obscures the real issue: Failure to make scheduled service.

I'm going to clear the air here.  Service has NOT been reduced (at least not officially).  The issue is that the (MTA) is NOT meeting their schedules, which still amounts to a reduction in service unofficially.  If they schedule 3 trains roughly every 10 minutes but only one comes, then that's two trains missing, and this goes on regularly during rush hour.  They're missing FAR more than two trains because there are periods when during say 30 - 40 minutes only 3 - 4 trains show up, so I don't want hear this nonsense about how they shouldn't do this and that. They knew what the repercussions would be when they moved those train sets to the (7) and they need to look at ALL solutions to remedy this problem because as it stands it is causing severe overcrowding that is downright dangerous, and we the passengers that use the line can not continue to accept it as is.  There is no excuse for it. It has to be fixed.  Simple as that.  

What's more disgusting is them continuing to act as if everything is normal.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

You're right about the track layout. However, this won't create any train conflicts. By routing all trains from the south side of the bridge (Broadway) to the Fourth Avenue express, (N) and (Q) trains have a grade-separated crossing over the north side tracks from 6th Avenue to Brighton. Although the 6th Avenue tracks don't align straight with Brighton (a switch is necessary), the tracks that those trains will cross into (the Broadway-Brighton track that the (Q) uses) will be unused because all (Q)s will be going down the express. I'm not sure if this makes sense in writing, but it will on a track map.

OK, I checked the track map and it makes sense.

The advantage of the (B)(D) being the ones down the Brighton Line is that 4th Avenue riders can take the (R) to DeKalb to connect to 6th Avenue, while Brighton Line riders still maintain a cross-platform transfer to a Broadway service (albeit one via Lower Manhattan). Plus it keeps the part-time Brighton Express lined up with the part-time CPW Local. Under the opposite scenario, DeKalb Avenue would only have Broadway-bound service, so Brighton Line riders looking to travel to 6th Avenue would have to transfer at Atlantic Avenue (or 34th Street). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lance said:

I think there is so much pushback with DeKalb Junction because it would force too many transfers to actually be a viable solution. I'm blanking on the proposed setup (was it (B)(D) via Brighton, (N)(Q) via Sea Beach/West End?), but if you're forcing the bulk of riders to transfer at Atlantic Av or DeKalb Av, will they really save that much time?

Regarding the Broadway weaving, I'm actually for straightening out the services where all Queens services run local via Whitehall and expresses from 96 Street run express via the Bridge. It's five stops spread out between four express stations. If those merges are removed, the all of the Broadway services will speed up.

The problem with de-interlining Queens is that it will work until the (T) shows up. Really, the fatal flaw in any de-interlining involving Broadway is that you cannot increase capacity with the (T) in the picture.

Honestly, I understand why the MTA did what it did when it made 72 St two-track, but in hindsight I would much rather have a crazy solution where they just cut-and-cover a little deeper and made it a four-track terminal, with SAS on the upper level and an unfinished Broadway express on the lower level, with provision to cross the river at 86 St or something. It may have ended up being cheaper than the three-track solution still, since you wouldn't need a wider footprint, and it would be perfectly fine as a flat junction since there's not really a scenario in which both SAS and the Broadway express would need to use it as a terminal (at that point you've got bigger problems, and the Broadway express can just use 57th as an alternate.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MTA also needs to address cleanliness, most of their train, especially the R143s look like they have never been washed and the interiors never seen a mop. Where is our money going to? Having trains that are disgusting as f*ck, dusty floors, nasty walls, come on... I'd rather grab a mop and clean the train myself if I were waiting for the MTA to get around it. The R143's are 18 years old and look older than the R46's because of how dirty it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WestFarms36 said:

MTA also needs to address cleanliness, most of their train, especially the R143s look like they have never been washed and the interiors never seen a mop. Where is our money going to? Having trains that are disgusting as f*ck, dusty floors, nasty walls, come on... I'd rather grab a mop and clean the train myself if I were waiting for the MTA to get around it. The R143's are 18 years old and look older than the R46's because of how dirty it is.

 

The biggest problem is the lighting. They dont change the bulbs often so the bulbs become yellow (or in some cases the cleaning solutions may make the light fixtures yellow). They get mopped in the terminals. 

Edited by Jdog14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jdog14 said:

 

The biggest problem is the lighting. They dont change the bulbs often so the bulbs become yellow (or in some cases the cleaning solutions may make the light fixtures yellow). They get mopped in the terminals. 

Not really, they just get a brooming. For the lights, MTA has really been lazy ordering the right light bulbs for the NTT's, they just put yellow light bulbs in and make the cars darker, MTA needs to have white lights in the cars to brighten up the subway car, and give it uniformity, in a Subway car you would see 5 different Light colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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