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.
Sign in to follow this  
Around the Horn

Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Eh. This feels like overkill to me. We have all the capacity we would ever need for 4th local in Montague; adding this complexity at best saves folks a cross-platform transfer and reduces service to the (relatively high demand) Brighton corridor. 

I agree the (S) should have been built to real train standards (and, hell, should have been linked into the (G) to make a real crosstown), but I don't think that should displace Manhattan service -- just have the shuttle run down the local with the (Q)

 Theoretically it's still possible to connect the (S) to the (G) , it's just a matter of capacity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Rebuild Essex and have the <RR> terminate there.

Like I've said before, use the abandoned trolley terminal to create two wide ADA platforms with elevators, get rid of the curve off the bridge and then abandon the side platform and current Manhattan bound track, keeping the entrance at Norfolk/Suffolk but walling it off. 

From north to south:

-The current "middle" track would become the Manhattan (J)(M)(Z) bound track

-The current island platform widened (using the space of the current Brooklyn bound (M) track) 

-A new center track for the (R) 

-A new island platform

-A new Brooklyn bound (J)(M)(Z) track.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Like I've said before, use the abandoned trolley terminal to create two wide ADA platforms with elevators, get rid of the curve off the bridge and then abandon the side platform and current Manhattan bound track, keeping the entrance at Norfolk/Suffolk but walling it off. 

From north to south:

-The current "middle" track would become the Manhattan (J)(M)(Z) bound track

-The current island platform widened (using the space of the current Brooklyn bound (M) track) 

-A new center track for the (R) 

-A new island platform

-A new Brooklyn bound (J)(M)(Z) track.

What was the track layout at Essex pre-2010?

Share this post


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

What was the track layout at Essex pre-2010?

The layout involved the Northernmost track used for Downtown service, the middle track used for all Queens-bound service, and no regular service on the southernmost track. In 2010, the (M) began using the southernmost track during weekdays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The layout involved the Northernmost track used for Downtown service, the middle track used for all Queens-bound service, and no regular service on the southernmost track. In 2010, the (M) began using the southernmost track during weekdays.

Your talking about the Broad St/Forest Hills bound track correct?

Share this post


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

I agree the (S) should have been built to real train standards (and, hell, should have been linked into the (G) to make a real crosstown), but I don't think that should displace Manhattan service -- just have the shuttle run down the local with the (Q)

It doesn’t displace Manhattan service - if (S) local could be done, it causes Brooklyn to adjust M-F (no express on Brighton weekends anyway, so no significant loss.)

Even doing a (B)(V) thing reduces express on Brighton but keeps (Q) the same while boosting Bay Ridge.

Complex Simplicity is the latter, and it doesn’t really change DeKalb delays, but it saves capital outlays until (MTA) gets real leadership interested in solving problems - but I’m just looking at a track map and channeling my inner Wallyhorse.

(My way of saying there is a better solution - I just haven’t thought on it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Deucey said:

It doesn’t displace Manhattan service - if (S) local could be done, it causes Brooklyn to adjust M-F (no express on Brighton weekends anyway, so no significant loss.)

Even doing a (B)(V) thing reduces express on Brighton but keeps (Q) the same while boosting Bay Ridge.

 Complex Simplicity is the latter, and it doesn’t really change DeKalb delays, but it saves capital outlays until (MTA) gets real leadership interested in solving problems - but I’m just looking at a track map and channeling my inner Wallyhorse.

(My way of saying there is a better solution - I just haven’t thought on it.)

I was just trying to say "keep a Manhattan-bound local" -- lack of clarity is my b. 

The issue with any Bridge-4th local service is twofold: with the way capacity is configured today, any throughput sent from the Bridge down the local is capacity not on Brighton, and any train you run in that pattern has to merge with the (R) south of Dekalb. You could, to be fair, run tunnel-Brighton trains to make up for the loss of Bridge-Brighton capacity, but you run into even more merging issues, and the fact that, given 4th local riders' unique ability to easily transfer onto both of the other 2 Dekalb corridors (Brighton and 4th express), it's generally better to give those corridors the good (ie Bridge) stuff, and let 4th local choose from their buffet of options. 

All of this said, I am completely with you that we can do better than whatever the MTA is coming out with. Operational interventions are the future in a city with such a capital cost problem; we damn well have to get good at making them. 

Share this post


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

given 4th local riders' unique ability to easily transfer onto both of the other 2 Dekalb corridors (Brighton and 4th express), it's generally better to give those corridors the good (ie Bridge) stuff, and let 4th local choose from their buffet of options. 

That’s where the problem lies - they have the option to get on all 4 Manhattan trunks at Atlantic, but the trains aren’t getting them there because of a junction in Manhattan and another in Queens.

Barring (MTA) or Corey Johnson’s reconstituted (NYCT) spending money fixing either, there isn’t a solution that isn’t going to rob Peter to pay Paul, so it comes down to “How do we do this and make everyone less miserable - spread the pain out to lessen impacts, or spend money appearing to solve a problem (trainsets) and hope they’ll shut up?” 

I’m sure they’ll pick the latter, but I’m hoping that some of the decision-makers who lurk here think on the former - whether it’s rethink the B Division in part or whole, or even just something on the Nassau Street line.

 But whichever one, it’s got to be effective.

Edited by Deucey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Deucey said:

That’s where the problem lies - they have the option to get on all 4 Manhattan trunks at Atlantic, but the trains aren’t getting them there because of a junction in Manhattan and another in Queens.

Barring (MTA) or Corey Johnson’s reconstituted (NYCT) spending money fixing either, there isn’t a solution that isn’t going to rob Peter to pay Paul, so it comes down to “How do we do this and make everyone less miserable - spread the pain out to lessen impacts, or spend money appearing to solve a problem (trainsets) and hope they’ll shut up?” 

I’m sure they’ll pick the latter, but I’m hoping that some of the decision-makers who lurk here think on the former - whether it’s rethink the B Division in part or whole, or even just something on the Nassau Street line.

 But whichever one, it’s got to be effective.

If the MTA realized that a one-size-fits-all approach to transit investment planning isn’t gonna cut it and really decided to attack issues like Rogers and Dekalb head on, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Dekalb isn’t even a capital fix. The tower there can, IIRC, track train identifications across the bridge from Grand/Canal and from Pacific/Dekalb, so if you simply trusted TOs to punch right and got rid of those godawful camera stops, you’d get a good bump in capacity and interlocking operation speed.

Of course, the veritable forest of GTs and control line extensions in the Dekalb area would put a limit on those gains (and are only resolvable with capital $$$) but still, little incremental things like killing the cameras that are a bit more intensive than sign changes but aren’t the next billion dollar boondoggle need to be looked at. 

Bringing it back to the (R), the whole Astoria/Broadway/4th Avenue corridor needs a combined operations and capital review. Things like the 34th St merge, the 11th St Cut, the Astoria terminal, the interaction with Nassau, Dekalb, the reliability issues on 4th local all should be looked at on a larger scale because frankly, myopic corridor or line-based treatments don’t cut it in a system with this much interlining/these lengths of routes, nor does siloing capital and operational needs in a system that needs a lot of both, and needs to be targeted with its limited funds. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only (Z) should operate peak direction express stopping on Middle Track from Broadway Junction, Myrtle Av Broadway and then Marcy Av. (J)(Z) AM rush service Manhattan Bound would still make normal skip stop service between Sutphin Blvd and Bway Jct, (Z) would switch to Center/Middle Track stopping at Bway Jct-Myrtle Bway-and then Marcy Av. Meanwhile Manhattan Bound (J) in AM service would operate on Local track stopping at Bway Jct, Chauncey St, Halsey St, Gates Av and Kosciuszko St then switch to Middle Track and stop at Myrtle Av Bway and Express to Marcy Av.

Then PM rush Queens Bound (J)(Z) operate Express Marcy Av to Myrtle/Bway, then (J) would switch to Local track stopping at Kosciuszko, Gates, Halsey, Chauncey, Bway Jct. Meanwhile (Z) operate Exp on middle track between Myrtle/Bway and Bway Jct, Then (J)(Z) would make skip stops between Bway Jct and Sutphin Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, we could reconnect the Nassau tracks to the Manhattan Bridge and have an (R) loop. The only problem with this is that a Broadway service has to go via Mountague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Terminating at Essex to me is a poor idea due to it only having a single track. The way I see it you have to options 

- (K) Bowery (center tracks; new crossover built)- Bay Ridge. (J) operates on outer tracks with (K) in inner. 

- (K) runs from abakndoned Bowery to Bay Ridge; (J) cut back to Chambers. New connection built between NB express at Chambers and current SB track.

You probably can’t more than 7-8 tph on the (K) if it terminates on Essex middle. But with an extended (W) supplementing the (K), it should still work. You shouldn’t need to cut the (J) back to Chambers.

8 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

As long as we are on the rebuild the Nassau line plan:

 

I think we should rebuild the like between Canal St and Chambers Street. Have the two center tracks serve the (J)(Z) Brown (R) and have the two outer tracks create a bellmouth to second avenue. That way if service improves with this new line between Essex and Bay Ridge we can look at the possibility of adding a Harlem-Bay Ridge line that could replace at the very least the brown (R) in the future.

I think this might be well worth considering as a way to do a 2nd Avenue service via Nassau St.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Short version: every other (B) becomes a (V) that goes to Bay Ridge, and follows the current (B) routing to DeKalb.

If the Franklin Shuttle wasn’t rebuilt as a 4-5 car single track, (B) could just go to Bay Ridge, (Q) could be the Brighton Express, and (S) could be the local to Coney Island.

A Bay Ridge (V) probably could fit on 6th Avenue Express and CPW/Concourse Local (though it’s probably overkill to send the (V) all the way to Bedford Park Blvd), given that both corridors’ tracks are not close to being maxed out. My only concern is the additional merging that will need to be done to get the (V) onto the Manhattan Bridge, even if Transit finally dispenses with the camera stops.

1 hour ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Only (Z) should operate peak direction express stopping on Middle Track from Broadway Junction, Myrtle Av Broadway and then Marcy Av. (J)(Z) AM rush service Manhattan Bound would still make normal skip stop service between Sutphin Blvd and Bway Jct, (Z) would switch to Center/Middle Track stopping at Bway Jct-Myrtle Bway-and then Marcy Av. Meanwhile Manhattan Bound (J) in AM service would operate on Local track stopping at Bway Jct, Chauncey St, Halsey St, Gates Av and Kosciuszko St then switch to Middle Track and stop at Myrtle Av Bway and Express to Marcy Av.

Then PM rush Queens Bound (J)(Z) operate Express Marcy Av to Myrtle/Bway, then (J) would switch to Local track stopping at Kosciuszko, Gates, Halsey, Chauncey, Bway Jct. Meanwhile (Z) operate Exp on middle track between Myrtle/Bway and Bway Jct, Then (J)(Z) would make skip stops between Bway Jct and Sutphin Blvd.

But would it be the (Z) that gets extended to Bay Ridge in this plan?

Share this post


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

You probably can’t more than 7-8 tph on the (K) if it terminates on Essex middle. But with an extended (W) supplementing the (K), it should still work. You shouldn’t need to cut the (J) back to Chambers.

You can absolutely turn more trains with step backs in the schedule and quicker turn a rounds. Should be able to get at least 10 TPH as that's what Whitehall puts out for the (W) IIRC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

A Bay Ridge (V) probably could fit on 6th Avenue Express and CPW/Concourse Local (though it’s probably overkill to send the (V) all the way to Bedford Park Blvd), given that both corridors’ tracks are not close to being maxed out. My only concern is the additional merging that will need to be done to get the (V) onto the Manhattan Bridge, even if Transit finally dispenses with the camera stops.

If it’s just alternating (B) and (V) trips, it’s a net reduction in service on Brighton, but the terminal could stay at 145th.

Or this (B)(V) thing could go to 168 St - but (C) would either end at 145th or have to go to Fordham or BPB.

But if (B) maintains some semblance of current frequency, then it or (V) would have to go to the Bronx because of fumigation and to prevent delays when Concourse and 8th Av Lines split.

Share this post


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

Rebuild Essex and have the <RR> terminate there.

That IS what I would still do, but as a "Brown (K) " between 9th and Essex as essentially the old <RR> / "Brown (R) " but also including in-service yard runs with such runs ending/beginning at Broadway Junction and listed as such on the schedule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:
7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

A Bay Ridge (V) probably could fit on 6th Avenue Express and CPW/Concourse Local (though it’s probably overkill to send the (V) all the way to Bedford Park Blvd), given that both corridors’ tracks are not close to being maxed out. My only concern is the additional merging that will need to be done to get the (V) onto the Manhattan Bridge, even if Transit finally dispenses with the camera stops.

But would it be the (Z) that gets extended to Bay Ridge in this plan?

 

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

A Bay Ridge (V) probably could fit on 6th Avenue Express and CPW/Concourse Local (though it’s probably overkill to send the (V) all the way to Bedford Park Blvd), given that both corridors’ tracks are not close to being maxed out. My only concern is the additional merging that will need to be done to get the (V) onto the Manhattan Bridge, even if Transit finally dispenses with the camera stops.

But would it be the (Z) that gets extended to Bay Ridge in this plan?

 

I'm talking about something different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't think this (B)(V) idea is a good one. Dekalb is already at capacity; pulling (V) throughput from the (B) means both of those services run at 5tph. Fixing Dekalb and running (B)(D)(V) up 6th at 10tph apiece means Brighton express and West End get less service to save folks on 4th a cross platform, while we introduce one hell of a merge scheduling issue where we're trying to merge 10tph services with 15tph services elsewhere in the system (think: (D)(A) merge). It also forces weird frequencies on BMT south: (V) forces (B)(D) to run at 10tph, which forces (Q) to run at 10 and (N) at 20, and so on. 

Perhaps most importantly, you're adding yet another merge to the Dekalb complex -- between the (R) and the (V) southbound and the (V) and the (B)(Q) northbound at Dekalb itself. It's one thing if we're adding a merge in the Nassau Cut, or somewhere where merging traffic can hold out without interfering with other traffic, but in Dekalb, where a delayed (V) means delays for the (B)(Q) or (R) trains behind it? Nah. That junction is already plenty complex. 

KISS applies to subways, too. We should strive to simplify (to an extent, of course) here.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Or, we could reconnect the Nassau tracks to the Manhattan Bridge and have an (R) loop. The only problem with this is that a Broadway service has to go via Mountague.

My original idea for this called for a loop line by connecting ONLY the northbound (Brooklyn-Bound) track to the Manhattan Bridge where such a "Brown (K) " would stop northbound only at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers going via the tunnel to Manhattan and via the Bridge back, with select (N) trains going southbound only during rush hours operating via the tunnel (northbound completely unaffected).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 10:37 PM, RR503 said:

I've been hearing about this...it's about time. I just hope the recommendations his team makes don't get too muddied by politics. I appreciate him drawing the parallel w/ buses. 

This smells fishy. We have the 179 order which was supposed to replace the 32s and 42s...and the 32s and 42s. If they were to keep those cars as was planned for Canarsie, there'd be no issue. 

I'm interested to see where this all goes. 

People love consistency and hate change. Everyone likes to complain about the services provided, but I guarantee you they'll be the same ones raising holy hell if said services are changed significantly, even if it is for the better.

In regards to car availability, with the drastic changes to the Canarsie project, the need for the 32s and 42s has lessened significantly. I have a feeling that once all of the 179s are in service and go through their teething issues, the 42s may simply be retired. As the recent MDBF figures show, the 42s are quite frankly on borrowed time and have been for a while now. As a minority fleet on what's essentially a low-use line, their performance numbers are not good for long-term sustainability. The 32s are in the same boat, but they perform a bit better than the 42s, which will allow them to stick around until the 211s arrive. However, they may be rotated more frequently with other trains, the 46s and 179s should they stay on the (A) and (C) lines. Their continued longevity is amazing, but they are cars that have been in service for 50+ years and their performance numbers reflect that. Transit is right to avoid overly relying on these cars.

On ‎5‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 11:21 PM, Deucey said:

That’s where the Shuttle reconstruction was shortsighted, since (Q) could’ve been express and shuttle could’ve been the local feeder.

Those local trains would've carried a lot of air if all local service ended at Prospect Park / Franklin-Fulton with a large imbalance of use between the local and express trains. Not every branch needs to operate as a feeder to another line.

I agree with you on the fact the shuttle was reconstructed poorly, but we must remember the MTA had no interest in rebuilding the shuttle in the first place. They were extremely content with replacing the dilapidated structure with bus service and only community outreach forced their hand to actually rehab the line. They pretty much did the bare minimum during the reconstruction to get the line rehabbed and operational again, hence the shortened platforms and single-tracked operation for most of the line.

On ‎5‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 10:38 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

Uh, I don’t know... longer QBL trains, QBL deinterlining and decent service for (F) riders in Brooklyn? 

You can't eliminate one good service and replace it with an entirely different good service elsewhere. It's why the plans for the Culver express died a quiet death after it came out that while south Culver riders would benefit from quicker service, north Culver would suffer from less frequent service. Any plans to improve service anywhere must not come at the expense of riders already benefitting from another service. In this case, there's a definite need for Myrtle Ave - midtown service, even when the (L) operates normally. Until that need changes, the present (M) is here to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lance said:

People love consistency and hate change. Everyone likes to complain about the services provided, but I guarantee you they'll be the same ones raising holy hell if said services are changed significantly, even if it is for the better.

In regards to car availability, with the drastic changes to the Canarsie project, the need for the 32s and 42s has lessened significantly. I have a feeling that once all of the 179s are in service and go through their teething issues, the 42s may simply be retired. As the recent MDBF figures show, the 42s are quite frankly on borrowed time and have been for a while now. As a minority fleet on what's essentially a low-use line, their performance numbers are not good for long-term sustainability. The 32s are in the same boat, but they perform a bit better than the 42s, which will allow them to stick around until the 211s arrive. However, they may be rotated more frequently with other trains, the 46s and 179s should they stay on the (A) and (C) lines. Their continued longevity is amazing, but they are cars that have been in service for 50+ years and their performance numbers reflect that. Transit is right to avoid overly relying on these cars.

The people who take the time to attend meetings hate change and make it known. The average New Yorker, not so much. The way engagement in this city is structured makes it really easy to be a naysayer, whereas people who could potentially benefit from a given intervention rarely are engaged. 

You could get rid of the 42s and still do some increases, FWIW. We still have a massive net increase in cars, and if we’re proposing weekday-only extensions to (J) or (W), this isn’t gonna be particularly time intensive either.

A note on MBDF: beyond car equipment failures making up a vanishingly small portion of all subway delays, the metric of MBDF puts all failures on equal footing. So a door failure (the most common failure mode on an R32) gets equated with a 160 blowing a motor, even though the latter will cause vastly more delays. 

Share this post


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

The people who take the time to attend meetings hate change and make it known. The average New Yorker, not so much. The way engagement in this city is structured makes it really easy to be a naysayer, whereas people who could potentially benefit from a given intervention rarely are engaged. 

You could get rid of the 42s and still do some increases, FWIW. We still have a massive net increase in cars, and if we’re proposing weekday-only extensions to (J) or (W), this isn’t gonna be particularly time intensive either.

A note on MBDF: beyond car equipment failures making up a vanishingly small portion of all subway delays, the metric of MBDF puts all failures on equal footing. So a door failure (the most common failure mode on an R32) gets equated with a 160 blowing a motor, even though the latter will cause vastly more delays. 

I would keep the R42s as spares, just in case. There is plenty of space in Pitkin to store them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, these are all good ideas, but we are forgetting, Bay Ridge can not handle as many trains as proposed.

Bay Ridge has a bellmouth at the southern end, why not create tail tracks and a crossover?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Ok, these are all good ideas, but we are forgetting, Bay Ridge can not handle as many trains as proposed.

Bay Ridge has a bellmouth at the southern end, why not create tail tracks and a crossover?

Bay Ridge once turned 20tph. I wouldn't worry too much about it...though tail tracks would certainly be nice. 

Share this post


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

Bay Ridge once turned 20tph. I wouldn't worry too much about it...though tail tracks would certainly be nice. 

When was that? Allegedly, according to tunnelrat, there are provisions for an 11-track storage yard past the bumper blocks.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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