Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I dont get why in the event of the being late why they dont send a SB down to 95th St to fill in the gap. I understand at times this would cause a big gap along Sea Beach but the runs more frequent so one train wouldnt hurt.

 and  run the same frequencies. The way to fix the  is to...fix the . 

[Lawrence St]

14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

 and  run the same frequencies. The way to fix the  is to...fix the . 

I've seen multiple trains arrive into 59th St before an (R). Probably because of the 4th Av partial shutdown but still.

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

I dont get why in the event of the being late why they dont send a SB down to 95th St to fill in the gap. I understand at times this would cause a big gap along Sea Beach but the runs more frequent so one train wouldnt hurt.

There was one time in December of 2016 that they sent a to 95th and back up the local...

[Jemorie]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I've seen multiple trains arrive into 59th St before an (R). Probably because of the 4th Av partial shutdown but still.

The  is scheduled more frequently only during rush hours and that headway during that timeframe is 6 minutes. Off-peak is 10 minutes. Rerouting an  to Bay Ridge would create a 12-minute service gap (rush hour) or a 20-minute gap (off-peak) on that entire line in the northbound direction.

So why mess with service on one line to make up service on another?

Ruminate.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Jemorie

[Around the Horn]

10 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The  is scheduled more frequently only during rush hours and that headway during that timeframe is 6 minutes. Off-peak is 10 minutes. Rerouting an  to Bay Ridge would create a 12-minute service gap (rush hour) or a 20-minute gap (off-peak) on that entire line in the northbound direction.

So why mess with service on one line to make up service on another?

Ruminate.

While 6 minutes may be the scheduled headway, there are numerous times in real life where there's  trains as close as every 2-3 minutes and no  in sight.

In a situation like this, sending an  to 95th would work.

[Lawrence St]

On 3/19/2019 at 3:30 PM, Around the Horn said:

While 6 minutes may be the scheduled headway, there are numerous times in real life where there's  trains as close as every 2-3 minutes and no  in sight.

In a situation like this, sending an  to 95th would work.

Thank you. You need to look at it from a riders perspective and not from a schedule one. It may say that the and share the same frequency, when in reality three trains come before an .

This didnt always use to happen, well not as frequent. With the lower portion of the 4th Av express being out, it's a race between the and for who gets to use the local track first.

Also when is that 4th Av G.O suppose to end?

[Bay Ridge Express]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Also when is that 4th Av G.O suppose to end?

July

[bulk88]

Why not lengthen Broad, Fulton, Chambers and Canal to 10 cars (or 11  or 12 hehehe), reopen canal east platform, install switches south of chambers for Montague service to goto Chambers east platform. Then continue and terminate at Canal (NQ, very long walk, R/W) for Broadway access. No switching conflict with J. And puts the 4 tracks to use. This setup I drew is more for emergency service changes that knock out Broadway or Manhattan Bridge rather than a permanent Nassau R. Anything from Dekalb can be drained through Montague to terminate at Canal. Sort of like 96/2 is the universal drain of 6th and broadway service during emergencies.

[Porter]

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but why not revive the  as it had existed in 1987? This would split the from Bay Ridge and allow peak hour riders to make transfers at Fulton or Chambers without being bogged down by issues in Queens. The infrastructure and bullets already exist.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Porter

[Porter]

On 3/18/2019 at 4:54 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

My next best option would be to have a brown  service to/from Essex replace the  as the main 4th Ave local train with the  functioning as the secondary 4th Ave local and the  getting cut back to Whitehall.

I've always liked the idea of a line.

[Lawrence St]

17 minutes ago, Porter said:

Perhaps this has been brought up before, but why not revive the  as it had existed in 1987? This would split the from Bay Ridge and allow peak hour riders to make transfers at Fulton or Chambers without being bogged down by issues in Queens. The infrastructure and bullets already exist.

I believe it has to do with the capacity restraints at Bay Ridge, since the is frequent (on paper).

One way to fix this issue is to have some rush hour trains end at Canal St or Whitehall St, and have some Whitehall St bound trains operate down 4th Avenue to Gravesend-86th St.

[JeremiahC99]

20 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I believe it has to do with the capacity restraints at Bay Ridge, since the is frequent (on paper).

One way to fix this issue is to have some rush hour trains end at Canal St or Whitehall St, and have some Whitehall St bound trains operate down 4th Avenue to Gravesend-86th St.

I would have  /  service go to 95th Street as well since  service would be less frequent and the stations south of 59th Street will see less service.  service in Brooklyn would consist of 6 train from Gravesend-86th Street In the morning rush and Gravesend-86th Street In the evening rush.

[Porter]

According to Joe Wong:

Quote

The Brown [] was also known as the “BANKERS SPECIAL” which only ran from Bay Ridge 95 Street to Chambers Street during the morning rush hours and from Chambers Street during the evening rush hours.

When the (aka #2 or ) operated from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Bay Ridge-95 Street from 1949 to 1987, the service was relatively reliable and you can set your watch by it. However, when it swapped its Queens terminal with the in 1987, service on this line deteriorated and plummeted from reliable to spotty and unreliable at best with its one hour and 36 minutes running time end to end, similar to the old which operated from the now demolished 168 Street-Jamaica to Coney Island via Brighton Local from 1967 to 1973.

Maybe the and termini should revert and switch back—then the could run as well as intended. Then again, that might obsolesce the .

Edited April 23, 2019 by Porter

[JeremiahC99]

7 minutes ago, Porter said:

According to Joe Wong:

Maybe the and termini should revert and switch back—then the could run as well as intended. Then again, that might obsolesce the .

And it would also make  service even more unreliable since this would leave the  with no yard again. The  is different since it can deadhead directly onto the 4th Avenue and Sea beach to Coney Island Yard, But the , there’s no way to do that without reversing onto another line. I know the 36-38th Street Yards is being converted for passenger service, but the reverse move could delay train traffic. Building a new yard in Astoria, not happening until  gets their costs down.

[Union Tpke]

44 minutes ago, Porter said:

According to Joe Wong:

Maybe the and termini should revert and switch back—then the could run as well as intended. Then again, that might obsolesce the .

Many  trips went to Metropolitan Avenue and the route used equipment from East New York.

[Lawrence St]

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Many  trips went to Metropolitan Avenue and the route used equipment from East New York.

So it was a  from Metropolitan Avenue to Bay Ridge?

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

So it was a  from Metropolitan Avenue to Bay Ridge?

Essentially.

[Lex]

5 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Building a new yard in Astoria, not happening until  gets their costs down.

Yes, that's the problem.

[R68OnBroadway]

Yards won't be an issue if you can use 36th-38th; do keep in mind though that it is not a super big issue as the route operated fine pre-1987 (you would get extra mileage but it's not a major issue).

[RR503]

Once again, we used to run more frequent  service than today using layups on various middle and spur tracks/CIY put ins via 36th to make service. Did it add non-rev miles? Sure, but it worked. It's one thing to object to more non-rev miles under this type of plan, but the operational viability is totally there.

[JeremiahC99]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Once again, we used to run more frequent  service than today using layups on various middle and spur tracks/CIY put ins via 36th to make service. Did it add non-rev miles? Sure, but it worked. It's one thing to object to more non-rev miles under this type of plan, but the operational viability is totally there.

 

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Yards won't be an issue if you can use 36th-38th; do keep in mind though that it is not a super big issue as the route operated fine pre-1987 (you would get extra mileage but it's not a major issue).

The Pre-1987  did NOT work. According to a brochure from 1987 advertising the change, it said this:

Quote

All Transit Authority subway cars are specifically assigned to a maintenance facility rather than a route, so that workers who are knowledgeable in the history and special needs of the cars can make repairs effectively. In the past, every subway route had direct access to such a repair facility except the R (The N had access to two facilities.)

Not only was this situation awkward for us, but it contributed to the delays experienced by R route passengers. The exchange of N and R terminals means both routes will have direct access to one maintenance facility allowing us to improve service reliability.

In addition to having a more reliable ride, R route passengers will also find an immediate improvement in the appearance of their subway cars. N riders in Brooklyn, however, will see some of the older cars that formerly ran on the R route. N passengers should note that this is only temporary, and, by fall, the appearance of every car on the N route will be improved. More importantly, new subway cars purchased as part of our five-year capital program will be put into service on the N route.

Read the brochure here: http://www.subwaynut.com/brochures/nrswitch/index.html

An alternative for putting the  and  back to its awful pre-1987 routes is to just reroute the  on 63rd Street. Before anybody asks, the switching moves will NOT delay   and  service as there is one  trip going northbound that already makes this move (partially). On that note, I would also propose rerouting most  trips from Queens Blvd to 96th Street. The  trips on Queens Blvd will be replaced by additional  service, which will run at 14 trains per hour.

Edited April 24, 2019 by JeremiahC99

[RR503]

25 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

The Pre-1987  did NOT work. According to a brochure from 1987 advertising the change, it said this:

Read the brochure here: http://www.subwaynut.com/brochures/nrswitch/index.html

Ah yes, the overwhelmingly organized operating environment of the 80s really does give us good ground to make such absolute claims...

This was the service plan operated before and through Chrystie at throughputs up to 15tph. It isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is better than what we have today.

25 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

An alternative for putting the  and  back to its awful pre-1987 routes is to just reroute the  on 63rd Street. Before anybody asks, the switching moves will NOT delay   and  service as there is one  trip going northbound that already makes this move (partially). On that note, I would also propose rerouting most  trips from Queens Blvd to 96th Street. The  trips on Queens Blvd will be replaced by additional  service, which will run at 14 trains per hour.

No, it definitely will delay  and  service. That 1  trip already wreaks havoc; here's service yesterday AM. The train to the right of the arrow is that 1  trip, the thing underlined in red is what looks to be a 2.5 min dwell at 57 on a  caused by that  merging in front.

...and this is before we consider the new  merge, the southbound equivalent of the above merge, and the simple fact that moving the  to 63rd isn't even the best way to run that sort of service pattern --  to 63 and  to Astoria at least keeps Broadway sane. 

For whatever it's worth (and I fully expect this to be lost to the wind) extrapolating the performance of a single train to make a case about the viability of a given service pattern is ridiculous. Delays and congestion increase with frequency; something that works at 1tph doesn't necessarily work at 15. Be careful there.

Edited April 24, 2019 by RR503

[JeremiahC99]

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ah yes, the overwhelmingly organized operating environment in the 80s really do give us good ground to make such absolute claims...

This was the service plan operated before and through Chrystie at throughputs up to 15tph. It isn't perfect, but it sure as hell is better than what we have today.

Maybe we should re-implement the organized operating environment from the 80s, but tailored for the current lines and services of 2019.

 

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

No, it definitely will delay  and  service. That 1  trip already wreaks havoc; here's service yesterday AM. The train to the right of the arrow is that 1  trip, the thing underlined in red is what looks to be a 2.5 min dwell at 57 on a  caused by that  merging in front.

...and this is before we consider the new  merge, the southbound equivalent of the above merge, and the simple fact that moving the  to 63rd isn't even the best way to run that sort of service pattern --  to 63 and  to Astoria at least keeps Broadway sane. 

For whatever it's worth (and I fully expect this to be lost to the wind) extrapolating the performance of a single train to make a case about the viability of a given service pattern is ridiculous. Delays and congestion increase with frequency; something that works at 1tph doesn't necessarily work at 15. Be careful there.

Well in this case, I'm am just out of ideas.

Maybe another idea is to extend some  trips to 86th Street, and modify the  frequency to have the  operate every 6 minutes north of Whitehall Street (10 trains per hour), and every 10 minutes (6 trains per hour) south of Whitehall. In its place,  and  service would be extended from Broad Street to 95th Street. Either that or some variant of the old Nassau service could work as well. As most Bay Ridge passengers want a faster route to Manhattan, a  /  extension would allow Broadway passengers to transfer at 59th or 36th Streets for the  (which provides faster service into Manhattan) for Broadway service in case they miss the . The  is literally one of the slowest ways to get to Manhattan, so no one will be heavily impacted.

And if there are fears that the  will jam 63rd, then why did the  reroute that one  trip to Second Avenue?

Edited April 24, 2019 by JeremiahC99

[R68OnBroadway]

27 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

The Pre-1987  did NOT work. According to a brochure from 1987 advertising the change, it said this:

Read the brochure here: http://www.subwaynut.com/brochures/nrswitch/index.html

An alternative for putting the  and  back to its awful pre-1987 routes is to just reroute the  on 63rd Street. Before anybody asks, the switching moves will NOT delay   and  service as there is one  trip going northbound that already makes this move (partially). On that note, I would also propose rerouting most  trips from Queens Blvd to 96th Street. The  trips on Queens Blvd will be replaced by additional  service, which will run at 14 trains per hour.

Can you stop with these non-starter proposals that create larger problems than the ones you perceive? There’s a reason why we don’t use the junction between 57th and 63rd despite the problems of 60th. 

 

[RR503]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Maybe we should re-implement the organized operating environment from the 80s, but tailored for the current lines and services of 2019.

You seem to have missed my sarcasm. The 1980s were a terrible decade for the subway.

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well in this case, I'm am just out of ideas.

Maybe another idea is to extend some  trips to 86th Street, and modify the  frequency to have the  operate every 6 minutes north of Whitehall Street (10 trains per hour), and every 10 minutes (6 trains per hour) south of Whitehall. In its place,  and  service would be extended from Broad Street to 95th Street. Either that or some variant of the old Nassau service could work as well. As most Bay Ridge passengers want a faster route to Manhattan, a  /  extension would allow Broadway passengers to transfer at 59th or 36th Streets for the  (which provides faster service into Manhattan) for Broadway service in case they miss the . The  is literally one of the slowest ways to get to Manhattan, so no one will be heavily impacted.

 And if there are fears that the  will jam 63rd, then why did the  reroute that one  trip to Second Avenue?

Why are we cutting  south of Whitehall? Bay Ridge isn't anywhere near capacity...

As for me, I'd just deinterline Broadway (at 34, if not 11th St too), maybe extend some  trips to Brooklyn, and call it a day. 

The reason MTA extended that  up is because they can't squeeze more cap out of the dumpster fire that is Dekalb Avenue interlocking, but need more capacity on SAS. Solution was peeling of that .