R262 (R62/R62A Replacement) - Information & Discussion

[Lawrence St]

18 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If I were them, I’d rather deinterline Rogers Junction. The three way merge between the , , and  is a pain. Deinterlining, combined with CBTC, plus any possible fix to Flatbush Avenue would boost system reliability.

We tried having Westchester Yard as a home base for the shuttle, but it was a pain to deal with, due to having to go all the way around just to get to the Pelham Line (track 4 does not connect to the Lexington Line).

With the reconfiguration of the shuttle to two tracks and 6-car trains, the best place for the  would be at East 180th/239th Street Yards.

I find it really stupid how they won't add a crossover in between Track 1 & 4...

[JeremiahC99]

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I find it really stupid how they won't add a crossover in between Track 1 & 4...

It’s not like it’s needed. The trains are running back and forth independently of each other on each of the three tracks, and when they get to each terminal, the conductors and operators simply switch roles (no cab switching).
 

In addition, both of the tracks connect to other lines so that way cars can be pulled for maintenance, so unless one of the tracks did not connect to the rest of the system, there is no need for a crossover.

[Lawrence St]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It’s not like it’s needed. The trains are running back and forth independently of each other on each of the three tracks, and when they get to each terminal, the conductors and operators simply switch roles (no cab switching).
 

In addition, both of the tracks connect to other lines so that way cars can be pulled for maintenance, so unless one of the tracks did not connect to the rest of the system, there is no need for a crossover.

I was doing it for flexibility, in case one track is out of service or has an issue.

[FLX9304]

On 1/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, beelinefan said:

There will have to be three and four car sets in this order to accommodate the 42nd st  

At this time, the 42nd St  is being remodeled to convert three tracks to two, so when that’s done, the 42nd St  not just see adjustments to the fleet, but will have 5 car links operating on two tracks. That is currently under construction and won’t be completed until ‘22

[Lex]

7 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If I were them, I’d rather deinterline Rogers Junction. The three way merge between the , , and  is a pain. Deinterlining, combined with CBTC, plus any possible fix to Flatbush Avenue would boost system reliability.

Because we totally shouldn't address the IRT's inherently poor planning skills...

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Lex said:

Because we totally shouldn't address the IRT's inherently poor planning skills...

This is _literally_ how you do that.

[Lex]

35 minutes ago, RR503 said:

This is _literally_ how you do that.

You address poor infrastructure by either fixing it or replacing it. Shuffling the deck chairs doesn't do that.

With the existing design, any connection  to the line placed between Franklin Avenue and Ralph Avenue would be forced to a single pair of tracks, as we see today. Moreover, we don't even have a remotely decent place to turn  trains in Manhattan (for all its flaws, Bowling Green has at least some means to turn trains without stranding large crowds), and nothing serving Lexington Avenue should be stuck with more than they're currently dealing with between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

You address poor infrastructure by either fixing it or replacing it. Shuffling the deck chairs doesn't do that.

With the existing design, any connection  to the line placed between Franklin Avenue and Ralph Avenue would be forced to a single pair of tracks, as we see today. Moreover, we don't even have a remotely decent place to turn  trains in Manhattan (for all its flaws, Bowling Green has at least some means to turn trains without stranding large crowds), and nothing serving Lexington Avenue should be stuck with more than they're currently dealing with between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue.

I agree! Luckily, there's a simple fix for Rogers: add two switches -- and no, there is room to do that. Multiple NYCT studies can confirm. 

I don't follow how a lack of  turn locations factors into this.  to Flatbush,  to Utica,  to New Lots

[JeremiahC99]

9 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I agree! Luckily, there's a simple fix for Rogers: add two switches -- and no, there is room to do that. Multiple NYCT studies can confirm. 

I don't follow how a lack of  turn locations factors into this.  to Flatbush,  to Utica,  to New Lots

Isn’t Flatbush limited to turning 18 trains per hour, and wouldn’t that interfere with running normal  headways with that pattern without improving Flatbush Avenue?

Hontesly, I would’ve done a somewhat different pattern:

 to Flatbush,  to New Lots,  to Utica Avenue? I know Utica has some terminal issues as well, but I do believe some policy issues can fix it. Furthermore, im addition to the express pocket that ends at Ralph Avenue, there is also another track that follows the southbound local track to the portal and ends at a bumper block at East NY Avenue at the portal. Why don’t they use that? Does it need third rail?

[RR503]

14 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Isn’t Flatbush limited to turning 18 trains per hour, and wouldn’t that interfere with running normal  headways with that pattern without improving Flatbush Avenue?

Flatbush can do (likely a good bit) more than 18 if you recrew faster and schedule tighter. A not insignificant amount of time is consumed via pocket dwell today.

14 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 to Flatbush,  to New Lots,  to Utica Avenue? I know Utica has some terminal issues as well, but I do believe some policy issues can fix it. Furthermore, im addition to the express pocket that ends at Ralph Avenue, there is also another track that follows the southbound local track to the portal and ends at a bumper block at East NY Avenue at the portal. Why don’t they use that? Does it need third rail?

They use both pockets at Utica AFAIK. Policy would definitely help at Utica, but it's unclear to me how much can be changed without also tinkering with schedules to absolutely minimize time in pockets. It's also one of those things where the other service alternative provides a better overall experience -- at least someone new gets a one seat ride up the East Side. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by RR503

[JeremiahC99]

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Flatbush can do (likely a good bit) more than 18 if you recrew faster and schedule tighter. A not insignificant amount of time is consumed via pocket dwell today.

They use both pockets at Utica AFAIK. Policy would definitely help at Utica, but it's unclear to me how much can be changed without also tinkering with schedules to absolutely minimize time in pockets. It's also one of those things where the other service alternative provides a better overall experience -- at least someone new gets a one seat ride up the East Side. 

One of the motivations of my plan was due to the merge at Rogers Junction between the  and  under the other plan. As a  rider in the morning, I often find the  train being stuck at Nostrand Avenue on the express track while the  is merging from President Street. I desire to remove this issue where needed, such as Rogers. The other plan would simply move the merge rather than eliminate it. My plan completely removes merging at Rogers Avenue while still allowing for the choice of East Side or West Side  for Utica customers. 
 

With a Utica Avenue subway, I propose the  go via Utica Avenue and the  and  take over the New Lots Line to New Lots Avenue. The service plan would only require adding switches at the portal connecting the ramp to both of the local tracks (replace the bumper with two switches). This eliminates the need to turn trains at Utica Avenue and would allow for New Lots commuters to have access to the Lexington Line (at an increased frequency). Though the local tracks between Utica and Franklin will be served by West Side local trains, there will still be cross platform transfers available today.

With an expansion of subway cars, such as in the scale of the R262 order, it should be evaluated to maybe install a middle track between Utica and New Lots for possible rush hour express service in the form of the  for speedier service.

Also, with the R262s, they better find some room to store 225 additional cars.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

One of the motivations of my plan was due to the merge at Rogers Junction between the  and  under the other plan. As a  rider in the morning, I often find the  train being stuck at Nostrand Avenue on the express track while the  is merging from President Street. I desire to remove this issue where needed, such as Rogers. The other plan would simply move the merge rather than eliminate it. My plan completely removes merging at Rogers Avenue while still allowing for the choice of East Side or West Side  for Utica customers. 

Aside from the merge being between  rather than , there is no difference in the number of merges in your plan vs the one put forth by NYCT, and NYCT’s better serves Nostrand and doesn’t shove all of Lex into one mediocre terminal. 

As for options at Utica, you can transfer, which in my experience is what most people seem to do anyway.

[rbrome]

Can we keep this on topic, please? This is the R262 thread. 

[R68ACTrain]

4 hours ago, rbrome said:

Can we keep this on topic, please? This is the R262 thread. 

f**k off...

[LTA1992]

1 hour ago, R68ACTrain said:

f**k off...

He's right doe...

[SubwayFan3000]

2 hours ago, R68ACTrain said:

f**k off...

I Reported You to the Admin for Cyberbullying and Harrasment!

[Lawrence St]

Can we act like adults and not like children please? This isn't a preschool.

[Maxwell179]

3 hours ago, R68ACTrain said:

f**k off...

I’m crying 😂😂

[T to Dyre Avenue]

7 hours ago, rbrome said:

Can we keep this on topic, please? This is the R262 thread. 

True, but de-interlining Rogers isn’t quite off-topic. Up thread was a post about the R262s being assigned to the  and 42nd St . Since 1983, the  and  have shared Flatbush Avenue as a southern terminal. To this day, both lines have operated the same or compatible trains. If R142s stay on the  while the  gets R262s, then they will have completely incompatible equipment for the first time at least four decades. That’s going to make operations of both lines a bit more difficult than before, especially if one line needs to be rerouted or there’s a gap in service on either line and  crews haven’t been trained to operate the R262s. But if the  and  are going to operate the same or compatible trains going forward after the R262s go into service, then would it not be easier if the  and  - which already share the same tracks from 135th Street to Franklin Avenue - share the same southern terminal?

Edited January 24, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Yankees4life]

Hmm...I do wonder if CBTC is coming toward those lines with the addition of the R262 now in the mix...

[Daniel The Cool]

On 1/24/2020 at 6:47 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

True, but de-interlining Rogers isn’t quite off-topic. Up thread was a post about the R262s being assigned to the  and 42nd St . Since 1983, the  and  have shared Flatbush Avenue as a southern terminal. To this day, both lines have operated the same or compatible trains. If R142s stay on the  while the  gets R262s, then they will have completely incompatible equipment for the first time at least four decades. That’s going to make operations of both lines a bit more difficult than before, especially if one line needs to be rerouted or there’s a gap in service on either line and  crews haven’t been trained to operate the R262s. But if the  and  are going to operate the same or compatible trains going forward after the R262s go into service, then would it not be easier if the  and  - which already share the same tracks from 135th Street to Franklin Avenue - share the same southern terminal?

Except there's a certain reason why the  southern terminal is New Lots Avenue and not Flatbush Avenue which is due to no direct yard access. 

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Except there's a certain reason why the  southern terminal is New Lots Avenue and not Flatbush Avenue which is due to no direct yard access. 

I go back to the time when the  ran from Lenox to Flatbush. With no “ home “ yard our equipment was maintained by East 180th St and 240th St yards. Even today when  ,  and  equipment breaks down in Brooklyn Livonia Yard isn’t equipped to handle major problems. I fear that with the new equipment coming down the pike the same situation will manifest itself. The layout of Livonia leaves some questions unanswered, IMO. Carry on.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I go back to the time when the  ran from Lenox to Flatbush. With no “ home “ yard our equipment was maintained by East 180th St and 240th St yards. Even today when  ,  and  equipment breaks down in Brooklyn Livonia Yard isn’t equipped to handle major problems. I fear that with the new equipment coming down the pike the same situation will manifest itself. The layout of Livonia leaves some questions unanswered, IMO. Carry on.

All the more reason to keep a route that doesn't have that much strain on it by itself at that yard.

(For anyone who would like to dispute, the strain on the  is because of strain on the  and . It doesn't have a base nearly as large as what most IRT routes have.)

[Union Tpke]

13 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I go back to the time when the  ran from Lenox to Flatbush. With no “ home “ yard our equipment was maintained by East 180th St and 240th St yards. Even today when  ,  and  equipment breaks down in Brooklyn Livonia Yard isn’t equipped to handle major problems. I fear that with the new equipment coming down the pike the same situation will manifest itself. The layout of Livonia leaves some questions unanswered, IMO. Carry on.

 

16 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Except there's a certain reason why the  southern terminal is New Lots Avenue and not Flatbush Avenue which is due to no direct yard access. 

See this:

[Lawrence St]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

 

See this:

?? Broken link.