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.
Union Tpke

Why Your Subway Train Might Start Moving Faster

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Oh, I by no means think that this bulletin is some sort of panacea. But the fact that this issue is so much as heard by upper management is a massive change from years past — many would have expressed the same doubts about speed review when mgmt announced that program a year ago. I have yet to give up all hope in this realm.

To the issue of speedometers: yes, it’s a problem. But it’s prevalence seems to be less so than in the past — I’ve never heard of a NTT with speedometers that are more than 1 or 2 mph off from real (normal disclaimers about anecdata, of course, apply).  

All the more reason to pay close attention to the (A)(B)(C)(D)(R) which receive a substantial number of the improvements.  

As for management listening, its contract time. Part of it is optics, part of it is leveraging. Especially if Byford leaves I expect the little gains that can be cited will be reverse in terms of over-discipline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of it is padding/recovery time, which is an important part of every schedule. As @RR503 and I often discuss it is a delicate balance,to strike. The (R) in particular has a lot of factors working against it, the 95th Street terminal needs to be fed through relaying trains in the morning. It shares track with the (D)(N) due to the 4th ave express closure then it runs the gauntlet on QB. In some cases early trains are worse than late trains, a late train is still coming and likely has a legitimate cause. Early trains are just a lack of discipline and can clog up terminals and force out-of-time operation because an unexpected train has to be dealt with when resources may not be in place to deal with them "go get coffee, you got a relay at 36", if (R) train shows up at '29, we'll just have to wait 'oops theres an (M) behind it? CRAP" "Track two that's you to go, track two that's you to go". 

Then you get trains leaving early, out of order, with the wrong crews, when an early train was avoidable. Right now there are a lot of holds because of an increase in work train activity and flagging in conjunction with the Subway plan of action. Rather than adding running time here and there NYCT wholesale puts in 3-4 minutes at a gap station so when things don't go as terribly as normal, the train is still compelled to wait to time. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

It still makes no sense to have trains move faster between stations and then hold to make up the time saved.

There’s an important distinction to be made between holds to time, terminal holdouts, and padding holds. The former has theoretically been abolished because schedules are inaccurate enough and the system fickle enough that they just introduce delay into a largely uncontrolled scenario, the next is the result of terminal congestion, itself frequently the result of the event chains that @Jsunflyguy describes, and the final is NYCT’s half-assed means of dealing with the very real runtime consequences of flagging/GO-related congestion. 

8 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Some of it is padding/recovery time, which is an important part of every schedule. As @RR503 and I often discuss it is a delicate balance,to strike. The (R) in particular has a lot of factors working against it, the 95th Street terminal needs to be fed through relaying trains in the morning. It shares track with the (D)(N) due to the 4th ave express closure then it runs the gauntlet on QB. In some cases early trains are worse than late trains, a late train is still coming and likely has a legitimate cause. Early trains are just a lack of discipline and can clog up terminals and force out-of-time operation because an unexpected train has to be dealt with when resources may not be in place to deal with them "go get coffee, you got a relay at 36", if (R) train shows up at '29, we'll just have to wait 'oops theres an (M) behind it? CRAP" "Track two that's you to go, track two that's you to go". 

Then you get trains leaving early, out of order, with the wrong crews, when an early train was avoidable. Right now there are a lot of holds because of an increase in work train activity and flagging in conjunction with the Subway plan of action. Rather than adding running time here and there NYCT wholesale puts in 3-4 minutes at a gap station so when things don't go as terribly as normal, the train is still compelled to wait to time. 

I think the best example of a chronically ‘early’ terminal is 8th Avenue (L). (L) didn’t get any runtime reductions after Snediker elimination or CBTC, both of which took good chunks of time out of the schedule. Today, many trains now run way ahead of schedule — so many, in fact, that ‘additional train time’ (the MTA’s quantification of the degree to which schedules match trip lengths) is often negative on the (L). This is great from a rider’s perspective, but operationally, a slew of (L) trains hitting 8th Ave 2-3 mins ahead of schedule can wreak havoc on what is already a pretty tight operation — pushes are minimized, so then you have a crapton of trains essentially holding to time in terminal pockets. Not good. 

To the (R), the line is really the biggest victim of what many have termed MoW’s coup in NYCT. The issue on northbound 4th express is, to be fair, partially a consequence of signaling decisions made in the 90s (the removal of GTs leading to some control line extensions, reducing capacity especially when a good portion of your traffic is work trains running at 25mph), but otherwise the (R)’s story is that of MOW/CPM (as empowered by a political/managerial system especially averse to pushing productivity and creativity) being allowed to run roughshod over the prerogative to actually provide service in some consistent, frequent and reliable manner. Nowhere else in the world would a transit system a) begin GOs at 10PM without having absolutely maximized productivity in the previously available time and b) significantly reduce/complicate service on major lines to get work trains out of yards without thoroughly examining things like longer work trains, or different train staging patterns to meet that earlier start time. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RR503 said:

... without thoroughly examining things like longer work trains, or different train staging patterns to meet that earlier start time. 

That comment I will take issue with, work trains have significant consist size limitation particularly when being dispatched across the bridges or river tubes because of the lack of power poor brake handling in comparison to what the signal system is designed for which is why they crawl using certain consists/areas. Its similar to how the work trains handle on my railroad...except they have even higher ruling gradients and have to wear gas masks to have any hope of getting their job done. Plenty of service disruptions have been the result of pushing the envelope on consist size. 

As far as staging goes, I have no idea about that. I suspect the answer relates to the "o-word".

Share this post


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

That comment I will take issue with, work trains have significant consist size limitation particularly when being dispatched across the bridges or river tubes because of the lack of power poor brake handling in comparison to what the signal system is designed for which is why they crawl using certain consists/areas. Its similar to how the work trains handle on my railroad...except they have even higher ruling gradients and have to wear gas masks to have any hope of getting their job done. Plenty of service disruptions have been the result of pushing the envelope on consist size. 

As far as staging goes, I have no idea about that. I suspect the answer relates to the "o-word".

Yes, I've heard some horror stories about work trains on the Manhattan Bridge especially. That said, though, they managed to figure out some way to consist work trains for the (L) shutdown, which at least to me suggests that there is some way to keep your tractive effort and braking parameters in order with longer trains. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yes, I've heard some horror stories about work trains on the Manhattan Bridge especially. That said, though, they managed to figure out some way to consist work trains for the (L) shutdown, which at least to me suggests that there is some way to keep your tractive effort and braking parameters in order with longer trains. 

I once took the (B) from Prospect into Manhattan one evening hoping it would be faster than the (Q) (since it crawls through DeKalb) and got stuck on the bridge for 20 mins since a work train ahead stalled and didn’t respond. Train also crawled up 6th and I eventually bailed for the (N) at 34th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I once took the (B) from Prospect into Manhattan one evening hoping it would be faster than the (Q) (since it crawls through DeKalb) and got stuck on the bridge for 20 mins since a work train ahead stalled and didn’t respond. Train also crawled up 6th and I eventually bailed for the (N) at 34th.

Wait, since when does any train going through DeKalb not crawl?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RR503 said:

I think the best example of a chronically ‘early’ terminal is 8th Avenue (L). (L) didn’t get any runtime reductions after Snediker elimination or CBTC, both of which took good chunks of time out of the schedule. Today, many trains now run way ahead of schedule — so many, in fact, that ‘additional train time’ (the MTA’s quantification of the degree to which schedules match trip lengths) is often negative on the (L). This is great from a rider’s perspective, but operationally, a slew of (L) trains hitting 8th Ave 2-3 mins ahead of schedule can wreak havoc on what is already a pretty tight operation — pushes are minimized, so then you have a crapton of trains essentially holding to time in terminal pockets. Not good. 

To the (R), the line is really the biggest victim of what many have termed MoW’s coup in NYCT. The issue on northbound 4th express is, to be fair, partially a consequence of signaling decisions made in the 90s (the removal of GTs leading to some control line extensions, reducing capacity especially when a good portion of your traffic is work trains running at 25mph), but otherwise the (R)’s story is that of MOW/CPM (as empowered by a political/managerial system especially averse to pushing productivity and creativity) being allowed to run roughshod over the prerogative to actually provide service in some consistent, frequent and reliable manner. Nowhere else in the world would a transit system a) begin GOs at 10PM without having absolutely maximized productivity in the previously available time and b) significantly reduce/complicate service on major lines to get work trains out of yards without thoroughly examining things like longer work trains, or different train staging patterns to meet that earlier start time. 

Are you kidding! They never reduced runtimes on the (L). Yikes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Wait, since when does any train going through DeKalb not crawl?

I used to recall the (B) sailing through the junction a few years ago (I had usually only taken the (Q) before this point)  as it was the only train you could actually see Masstranscope from, but it seems to have slowed down to (Q) levels of crawling like the junction is the CBE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Are you kidding! They never reduced runtimes on the (L). Yikes.

Weekday northbound (L) in 2001: 36-37 min end to end runtimes

https://web.archive.org/web/20030629000739/http://mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tlcur.pdf

Weekday northbound (L) in 2019: 37-40 min runtimes

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tlcur.pdf

Also @Jsunflyguy why did you pick (A)(B)(C)(D)? IND has had comparatively few increases -- I'm watching runtimes on Broadway/Lex local, and Lex express. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, RR503 said:

 

Also @Jsunflyguy why did you pick (A)(B)(C)(D)? IND has had comparatively few increases -- I'm watching runtimes on Broadway/Lex local, and Lex express. 

I was referencing them since them as they have the Older equipment, so they still have the inconsistency to contend with hence why the (R) was also included. 

As far as work trains, the only way around it is more engines, of which there is a finite number. Or break the consists into smaller portions, which is more trips and/or crews. I think it would be very likely that then engines get prioritized to the (L) shut down given the amount of political and social pressure on the matter. Also I just checked the Bathymetry data to verify a suspicion, the area near the14th St tunnel has a fairly shallow sea bed 25' below sea level. Granted the tracks can be a bit deeper than this but we can establish a minimum depth. Other tubes contend with depths of 70-100ft so 14th Street has some Political and Geological advantages.  

Edited by Jsunflyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

I was referencing them since them as they have the Older equipment, so they still have the inconsistency to contend with hence why the (R) was also included. 

As far as work trains, the only way around it is more engines, of which there is a finite number. Or break the consists into smaller portions, which is more trips and/or crews. I think it would be very likely that then engines get prioritized to the (L) shut down given the amount of political and social pressure on the matter. Also I just checked the Bathymetry data to verify a suspicion, the area near the14th St tunnel has a fairly shallow sea bed 25' below sea level. Granted the tracks can be a bit deeper than this but we can establish a minimum depth. Other tubes contend with depths of 70-100ft so 14th Street has some Political and Geological advantages.  

Maintaining a relatively constant hp/ton for a constant number of work cars just put together into a longer consist shouldn’t require more work motors. 

While 14th isn’t *that* deep, (L) isn’t a cakewalk either. Lots of hogbacks and shortish sections of steep track (entrances to Bway Jct being a great example). Can’t imagine that fun to operate a C div consist over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2019 at 10:27 PM, RR503 said:

significantly reduce/complicate service on major lines to get work trains out of yards without thoroughly examining things like longer work trains, or different train staging patterns to meet that earlier start time. 

They blew any chance at that when they ordered new work locomotives that are useless to pull anything unless you use multiples of them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Maintaining a relatively constant hp/ton for a constant number of work cars just put together into a longer consist shouldn’t require more work motors. 

 

If you mean in aggregate, technically yes that is correct. But say we have 3 Work trains, an engine and 5 cars each, putting them together induces a number of other problems. The brake pipe on a 15 car train reacts  much more slowly which requires more conservative train handling. Other complications include spotting the train becomes more difficult, trains spend more times in curves (automatic speed reduction per rule) and often work sites require certain cars in order, or multiple work sites within an out of service area. So a longer train would require switching on the main line, yikes!

As far as train handling, small segments of grades can be challenging but doable if you are set up, the persistent and prolonged grade especially if you have to enter the grade with brake on because of another speed restriction or worse...a timer is where you get killed. Hitting hills like that at 14mph vs 17mph can be all the difference in making it. Other segments do not prove much in limiting operations which is why I specifically used the term ruling gradient.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

If you mean in aggregate, technically yes that is correct. But say we have 3 Work trains, an engine and 5 cars each, putting them together induces a number of other problems. The brake pipe on a 15 car train reacts  much more slowly which requires more conservative train handling. Other complications include spotting the train becomes more difficult, trains spend more times in curves (automatic speed reduction per rule) and often work sites require certain cars in order, or multiple work sites within an out of service area. So a longer train would require switching on the main line, yikes!

As far as train handling, small segments of grades can be challenging but doable if you are set up, the persistent and prolonged grade especially if you have to enter the grade with brake on because of another speed restriction or worse...a timer is where you get killed. Hitting hills like that at 14mph vs 17mph can be all the difference in making it. Other segments do not prove much in limiting operations which is why I specifically used the term ruling gradient.

Your observations are consistent with what I was taught 30 odd years ago. From what I’ve been reading lately one major difference in operations is that work trains have been given equality or priority over road (passenger) trains in many instances. Back then the road trains always had priority.I’ve seen complaints about the work train staging on the 4th Avenue BMT but my former work train colleagues say that it’s about time. If your work area is Midtown Manhattan and the consists have to be spotted in a particular order IMO you don’t stage your equipment at CI yard or Pitkin for example. By the time those trains reach the site you’re wasting half your allotted time before work starts. In our case imagine an IRT work train or trains traveling from Westchester yard to Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn or 168st on the (1) nightly. 240th or Livonia couldn’t accommodate that equipment. Instead of a project taking a week or so before completion you’ve stretched it out to a month or more. I am reminded of 55 hour G.O.s at Nevins St where those necessary consists traveled from Westchester in a particular order to arrive onsite and commence work. God forbid if one consist had to be flagged at 10mph or less all the way there. I had a Trainmaster intercede with the work train dispatcher at Westchester one night because he wanted us to flag a train from there to Nevins and I suggested looping it around Bowling Green. I won the battle that night and my Trainmaster and my rabbi made sure that I never had to go back to Westchester again. The dispatcher held a grudge for years I was told. You seem to understand that longer consists create even more problems than they’re worth. If the present regime, and the public, want this work done in a timely matter there will have to be some accommodating done. Just my opinion. Carry on.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

If you mean in aggregate, technically yes that is correct. But say we have 3 Work trains, an engine and 5 cars each, putting them together induces a number of other problems. The brake pipe on a 15 car train reacts  much more slowly which requires more conservative train handling. Other complications include spotting the train becomes more difficult, trains spend more times in curves (automatic speed reduction per rule) and often work sites require certain cars in order, or multiple work sites within an out of service area. So a longer train would require switching on the main line, yikes!

As far as train handling, small segments of grades can be challenging but doable if you are set up, the persistent and prolonged grade especially if you have to enter the grade with brake on because of another speed restriction or worse...a timer is where you get killed. Hitting hills like that at 14mph vs 17mph can be all the difference in making it. Other segments do not prove much in limiting operations which is why I specifically used the term ruling gradient.

It’s my understanding of the brake performance issue that the controlling factor is much less actual length per se but the distance from a given car’s air reservoir to the locomotive — or the distance across which a braking signal has to propagate before causing action in a consist...which to me raises the question of whether NYCT has ever examined extended MUing or some sort of distributed power-y setup for work trains. I’d imagine not given the complexities of maintaining a physical connection through a train for the former, and those of maintaining any radio connection with serviceable reliability in an underground environment for the latter. Nonetheless, an interesting thought experiment to explore, as it’d both allow you to minimize the exponential part of the locos/train function at higher train lengths, and would help minimize that switching you talk about — consists could just be broken apart at worksites, or even partway to work sites after having passed through some capacity bottleneck. I’d love to know what they’re doing for the (L) in this regard. 

There are of course other concerns beyond what we’ve just enumerated with longer work trains: anything over the prevailing train length in the area means spurs aren’t fair game, so no stashing trains if (really speaking, when, as @Around the Horn points out) a work motor craps out, you get more gnarly internal train stresses/slack action in areas with complex vertical geometry, you take more time to clear interlockings when making a diverging move, etc etc etc. This all has to be weighed against a set eating line capacity faster than most else in the system, of course, but I suspect that the risk analysis works out only in the more extreme scenarios — bottlenecks like F4 or Dekalb, and areas where work train ops are truly incompatible with prevailing operations, like the portions of Canarsie with sparse AWS. 

My hot take of the week is that what’ll eventually save the A and B from the C is work train CBTC. The 156s, crappy as they are, were in fact provisioned for it, and I’m hopeful that Tomlin will bring over that particular policy from his past projects in Toronto. It’d allow us to dynamically space traffic around these trains to countermand the basic issue of running trains at =<25 mph in fixed block territory whose signals were designed for a MAS of 45 or 50. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your observations are consistent with what I was taught 30 odd years ago. From what I’ve been reading lately one major difference in operations is that work trains have been given equality or priority over road (passenger) trains in many instances. Back then the road trains always had priority.I’ve seen complaints about the work train staging on the 4th Avenue BMT but my former work train colleagues say that it’s about time. If your work area is Midtown Manhattan and the consists have to be spotted in a particular order IMO you don’t stage your equipment at CI yard or Pitkin for example. By the time those trains reach the site you’re wasting half your allotted time before work starts. In our case imagine an IRT work train or trains traveling from Westchester yard to Franklin Avenue, Brooklyn or 168st on the (1) nightly. 240th or Livonia couldn’t accommodate that equipment. Instead of a project taking a week or so before completion you’ve stretched it out to a month or more. I am reminded of 55 hour G.O.s at Nevins St where those necessary consists traveled from Westchester in a particular order to arrive onsite and commence work. God forbid if one consist had to be flagged at 10mph or less all the way there. I had a Trainmaster intercede with the work train dispatcher at Westchester one night because he wanted us to flag a train from there to Nevins and I suggested looping it around Bowling Green. I won the battle that night and my Trainmaster and my rabbi made sure that I never had to go back to Westchester again. The dispatcher held a grudge for years I was told. You seem to understand that longer consists create even more problems than they’re worth. If the present regime, and the public, want this work done in a timely matter there will have to be some accommodating done. Just my opinion. Carry on.

I think a big issue is exactly what you pull out: distance to the worksite. It seemed that for quite a while, NYCT was perfectly content staging seemingly everything on the B division out of 38 regardless of whether there was another facility that could handle at least some of the load closer to the GO. I’m thinking about the underutilization of Linden for Eastern Division GOs, Jamaica Yard only recently having been ‘discovered’ as a good place to stage trains for QBL work, etc. Now of course, not every yard is equipped to handle C division stuff, but I nonetheless think that in general terms, allowing operating people more more latitude in yard access rather than track access would yield some not insignificant improvements. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another QBL observation/question

Have the DGTs on the n/b local at Forest Hills been modified?

I didn't see them active yesterday as a terminating (R) pulled in, this was during a GO with all service on the local track. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

Another QBL observation/question

Have the DGTs on the n/b local at Forest Hills been modified?

I didn't see them active yesterday as a terminating (R) pulled in, this was during a GO with all service on the local track. 

Your (R) was likely following a train that ran through, so the switch was set for continuing local service rather than for the relay meaning no DGT. I’d bet all the money in my pocket that the train after your (R) got DGTed. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as distributed power goes the method class 1 railroads use VHF telemetry data to control the trailing unit(s). This is a non-starter because of reception issues underground. The other method is to make all the freight cars MU capable either by running the jumpers seperately or changing everything to an MU coupler, which has its own problem.

 

Lets say you manage to cable all the cars and they all work reliably the trailing units can only copy what the lead unit outputs. In addition to that, MU jumpers do not have a signal to control brake pipe so the consist will still only exhaust from the controlling unit

To change that you would need a seperate control device to manipulate and monitor the trailing unit as well as create a unique MU system, which means any contractor that bothers to bid on it will bend the MTA over the barrel and plunder us for the pleasure. Option B is to switch to the same couplers as the Motors which will reduce your drawbar strength, perhaps beyond the point where there is a benefit, it also may not be possible to control the brake pipe efficiently through the tappet valve in the coupler. But that bit is beyond my High School physics.

 

As for staging in Jamaica etc, it doesn't look good from a planning perspective, JYD is already at capacity, the the point where the overflow is already stored on Hillside Avenue, so you wont be able to sneak the train in the night prior so it will have to be during the shoulders between rush which would pretty much waste a crew day to shuttle train(s) up. Then paying OT to and from the work which is not the picked location. The last thing the MTA is going to do is increase OT. I can hear the hyperventilating now "TA Conductor get paid 25k extra a year to drive train when no work is being done #FireCuomo"

 

The other complication of more solid import is that certain cars are needed for portions of a work program then get switched out to another project. If you have a set in Jamaica, another in 240th etc, you lose that flexibility and end up creating more work trains to pass cars back and forth. You also end up paying contractors to travel away from the agreed location (guess where that is) to do heavy loading and unloading which can slow down the project or $end it even further over budget. Point being is track space is finite and you pay for it one way or another. 

 

As far as CBTC work trains, I cant see that happening. Regardless it still doesnt overcome the fact that the work train ahead will be doing 15-25mph. As the saying goes in the NBA, you cant train to be 7ft tall. You can get closer to that slow train when it stops you, but you're stopped all the same.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

 

As far as distributed power goes the method class 1 railroads use VHF telemetry data to control the trailing unit(s). This is a non-starter because of reception issues underground. The other method is to make all the freight cars MU capable either by running the jumpers seperately or changing everything to an MU coupler, which has its own problem.

 

 Lets say you manage to cable all the cars and they all work reliably the trailing units can only copy what the lead unit outputs. In addition to that, MU jumpers do not have a signal to control brake pipe so the consist will still only exhaust from the controlling unit

To change that you would need a seperate control device to manipulate and monitor the trailing unit as well as create a unique MU system, which means any contractor that bothers to bid on it will bend the MTA over the barrel and plunder us for the pleasure. Option B is to switch to the same couplers as the Motors which will reduce your drawbar strength, perhaps beyond the point where there is a benefit, it also may not be possible to control the brake pipe efficiently through the tappet valve in the coupler. But that bit is beyond my High School physics.

I don’t know enough about MU systems to speak to this authoritatively, but given the level of customization that already goes into MTA projects, I can’t imagine that a modified MU system is too big of an ask — especially given the potential operations savings one could reap from it. 

Regardless, I’d be really interested to know what exactly they’re doing on Canarsie. That’s a real world example of our discussion.  

51 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

As for staging in Jamaica etc, it doesn't look good from a planning perspective, JYD is already at capacity, the the point where the overflow is already stored on Hillside Avenue, so you wont be able to sneak the train in the night prior so it will have to be during the shoulders between rush which would pretty much waste a crew day to shuttle train(s) up. Then paying OT to and from the work which is not the picked location. The last thing the MTA is going to do is increase OT. I can hear the hyperventilating now "TA Conductor get paid 25k extra a year to drive train when no work is being done #FireCuomo"

Jamaica Yard already stages work trains — I was citing it as a common sense intervention the agency should have made years ago. Most nights/weekends, >50% of QB work trains come from Jamaica rather than other system yards, as I *believe* was stipulated in one of the applicable contracts.

In general, the cost equation is definitely going to work in decentralization’s favor. Between the actual runtime to/from some far away worksite and the delays to revenue service incurred therethrough, putting work trains close to where they’re going would probably save the agency some not insignificant amount of money annually — additional transfer moves included. 

51 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

The other complication of more solid import is that certain cars are needed for portions of a work program then get switched out to another project. If you have a set in Jamaica, another in 240th etc, you lose that flexibility and end up creating more work trains to pass cars back and forth. You also end up paying contractors to travel away from the agreed location (guess where that is) to do heavy loading and unloading which can slow down the project or $end it even further over budget. Point being is track space is finite and you pay for it one way or another. 

Flexibility is an issue. But I think there’s a happy medium to be reached between having the caravan on F4 and having each yard have a little something — at least some basic equipment at yards with excess capacity would do wonders for fluidity. Once again, this is something that pretty much every other transit system in the world has figured out how to do reliably.

Alternatively, they could just push the GO start time back to where it was previously...but that’s out of the question, isn’t it. 

51 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

As far as CBTC work trains, I cant see that happening. Regardless it still doesnt overcome the fact that the work train ahead will be doing 15-25mph. As the saying goes in the NBA, you cant train to be 7ft tall. You can get closer to that slow train when it stops you, but you're stopped all the same.

I’d be extremely surprised if CBTC work trains _doesn't_ happen. The exact same signals leadership team we have at NYCT today was confronted with the exact same problem in Toronto — with essentially the exact same legacy signal system — and elected to go for work train compliance. The marginal cost of AWS is in fact so high that this’d be an economically sensical move too. I remember a study of QB that found that the cost of equipping the entire NYCT work fleet with CBTC was less than that of AWS. Given all this, I think this is a move we can expect.

As for impact, let’s go back to the original question here: why is 4th so bad? One of the primary drivers behind the interminable GO is the fact that F4 previously had 2 shot GTs, which, when removed, led to some major control line extensions. That’s fine for normal service running at 35+, but with slow work trains, your capacity is shot. CBTC would not solve the speed difference, yes, but it’d do a lot reduce the capacity loss. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They're starting to use runtimes!
qNxHr8m.png

The causation here should be clear: hot curve and better close-up ops power the (7), while the others seem to be roughly correlated with the number of sign changes made. The one that stood out to me the most was the (R), actually: despite peak congestion because of the (N)'s temporary merge at 36, it still posted a 3% runtime gain. I'm impressed. 

Link to the page in the board book.

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

They're starting to use runtimes!
qNxHr8m.png

The causation here should be clear: hot curve and better close-up ops power the (7), while the others seem to be roughly correlated with the number of sign changes made. The one that stood out to me the most was the (R), actually: despite peak congestion because of the (N)'s temporary merge at 36, it still posted a 3% runtime gain. I'm impressed. 

Link to the page in the board book.

Isn’t the (N) work supposed to end this month?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Isn’t the (N) work supposed to end this month?

Supposed to. There has been no update.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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