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

15 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

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

That aligns with my memories as a kid of seeing NYCT manholes on 4th Avenue way past where the (R) stops running...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

That aligns with my memories as a kid of seeing NYCT manholes on 4th Avenue way past where the (R) stops running...

 

Where would those be? Tunnelrat has had trouble providing evidence of this on subchat.

"also the tunnels extend beyound the bumper blocks ay 95st to 101st.just an empty 2 track tunnel that was meant to cross under the narrows&link up with sirt on the other side. "

Era publication[the bulletin]stated so many,many years ago published it.Also over 10 years ago I met a light maintainer who told me that when the platforms at 95st were extended the wall beyound the b/b`s were taken down.he&his helper walked to the end[101st]no manholes or emergency exits were installed.he told me the only known entrance was thru an unmarked manhole across the street from the station[facing towards coney island]I searched,couldn`t find it. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Where would those be? Tunnelrat has had trouble providing evidence of this on subchat.

"also the tunnels extend beyound the bumper blocks ay 95st to 101st.just an empty 2 track tunnel that was meant to cross under the narrows&link up with sirt on the other side. "

Era publication[the bulletin]stated so many,many years ago published it.Also over 10 years ago I met a light maintainer who told me that when the platforms at 95st were extended the wall beyound the b/b`s were taken down.he&his helper walked to the end[101st]no manholes or emergency exits were installed.he told me the only known entrance was thru an unmarked manhole across the street from the station[facing towards coney island]I searched,couldn`t find it. 
 

I vaguely remember seeing them somewhere south of Marine Avenue and north of 101st Street (after 4th and 5th Avenues merge and the street makes a slight turn) but I went back later and couldn't find them. So either I misremembered seeing them as a kid or the covers were swapped out at some point.

Share this post


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

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

1968. 15tph of RR, 5tph of bankers’ special. 

Dunno about 11 track yard, but wouldn’t be surprised if there were provisions...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

1968. 15tph of RR, 5tph of bankers’ special. 

Dunno about 11 track yard, but wouldn’t be surprised if there were provisions...

Wow. Did service to Astoria ever drop below 15 TPH? There were the QB trips that became RR trips as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of ways to improve service not just for Bay Ridge but systemwide.

One obvious issue that needs to be addressed is the dispatching, as trains can't run on time if they don't leave the first stop on time. For whatever reason, trains don't depart the terminal on time except on the (1)(6)(7)(L) single-service lines. Luckily operations issues are much easier to resolve compared to building new tunnels. 

Deinterlining can improve service too. Right now the (R) has to deal with the (N) twice (btwn 36 St and 59 St in Brooklyn due to construction, then btwn Times Sq and 59 St - Lex Ave), the (W) in Manhattan, and then the (M) in Queens. In any reasonable service plan, the (N) should stay on the express tracks to 96 St and then the Bay Ridge trains have fewer merges that impede them. 

Also, headways should be standardized. Assuming the Astoria line is limited to one (W) train every 4 minutes, the (R) needs to have similar headways so that there won't be conflicts. In practice that means the (R) has to run every 8 minutes, and it follows that the (M) has to run every 8 minutes as well. Fortunately the QB local trains aren't crowded and the (E)(F) run on 4 minute headways so everything syncs up nicely. Since the (W) will be the more frequent route, it should replace the (R) in Brooklyn.

In the end, the ideal plan is something in the lines of

(N) Sea Beach / Bway express / 2 Ave, shuttle between CI and Whitehall St at night

(Q) Brighton / Bway express / 2 Ave, local at night

(R) Forest Hills - Whitehall St local, no service at night

(W) Astoria - Bay Ridge local, all times

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I vaguely remember seeing them somewhere south of Marine Avenue and north of 101st Street (after 4th and 5th Avenues merge and the street makes a slight turn) but I went back later and couldn't find them. So either I misremembered seeing them as a kid or the covers were swapped out at some point.

I can check for this and take a picture if I see it over the weekend.

Also, overall, I have generally noticed that a lot of these plans have to sacrifice something else in the B Division that may be valuable. I still think having a (K) would just be the easy way out, although that proposal's issues aren't unheeded either.

But I do still think it would be better than adding supplement routes that stem from what are already long routes that may be unreliable themselves and would create an even bigger ripple effect than what we have today in terms of delays on the (R) . After all, the only reason these plans are being talked about is due to the (R) 's unreliability.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


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

Wow. Did service to Astoria ever drop below 15 TPH? There were the QB trips that became RR trips as well.

Yeah, pretty sure that they ran only 10-12 in the 80s and 90s. I'll have to double check though...

Share this post


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

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

Did you make a typo or did you actually mean 11 tracks?

Share this post


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

Did you make a typo or did you actually mean 11 tracks?

That was according to tunnelrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 12:05 AM, Bay Ridge Express said:

I can check for this and take a picture if I see it over the weekend.

Also, overall, I have generally noticed that a lot of these plans have to sacrifice something else in the B Division that may be valuable. I still think having a (K) would just be the easy way out, although that proposal's issues aren't unheeded either.

But I do still think it would be better than adding supplement routes that stem from what are already long routes that may be unreliable themselves and would create an even bigger ripple effect than what we have today in terms of delays on the (R) . After all, the only reason these plans are being talked about is due to the (R) 's unreliability.

The (K) is the easy way out (relatively), but you’d still have to have a Broadway service (either the (R) or (W)) continuing into Brooklyn not just to help it out, but also because Whitehall would have a lot of trouble turning both the (R) and (W)

A downside to the (K) replacing the (R) as the primary 4th Ave local train would be de-interlining the (N) at 34th. Because if the (N) is rerouted to 2nd Ave, something will have to replace it in Astoria. That something could be additional (W) service. But that would result in a much more frequent (W) train. It would be troublesome to terminate the additional (W)’s at Whitehall (or even Canal) if the (R) is already turning there. 

Like @Caelestor proposed upthread, we can make a more frequently-running (W) the full time 4th Ave local service and turn the (R) at Whitehall. But then the (MTA) will better get moving on creating storage space for revenue trains at 36th Street Yard. Though it’s possible under that scenario, the (W) would be the only 4th Ave local train, because if it runs 15-20 tph, there may be very little capacity left for a Nassau (K) train.

Share this post


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

The (K) is the easy way out (relatively), but you’d still have to have a Broadway service (either the (R) or (W)) continuing into Brooklyn not just to help it out, but also because Whitehall would have a lot of trouble turning both the (R) and (W)

A downside to the (K) replacing the (R) as the primary 4th Ave local train would be de-interlining the (N) at 34th. Because if the (N) is rerouted to 2nd Ave, something will have to replace it in Astoria. That something could be additional (W) service. But that would result in a much more frequent (W) train. It would be troublesome to terminate the additional (W)’s at Whitehall (or even Canal) if the (R) is already turning there. 

Like @Caelestor proposed upthread, we can make a more frequently-running (W) the full time 4th Ave local service and turn the (R) at Whitehall. But then the (MTA) will better get moving on creating storage space for revenue trains at 36th Street Yard. Though it’s possible under that scenario, the (W) would be the only 4th Ave local train, because if it runs 15-20 tph, there may be very little capacity left for a Nassau (K) train.

Let me clarify:

(K) Bay Ridge-Bowery (or any other place nearby that would be easy to terminate in) via 4 Av Local/Nassau St Local 5 tph

(R) Bay Ridge-Astoria via 4 Av Local/Broadway Local/Astoria Local 10 tph (using 36-38 St yard)

(W) Whitehall-Astoria via Broadway Local/Astoria Local 4.5 tph

(N) Coney Island-96 St/2 Av via Sea Beach Local/4 Av Exp/Broadway Exp/2 Av Local 6-10 tph

(Q) Coney Island-96 St/2 Av via Brighton Local/Broadway Exp/2 Av Local 10-11 tph

As for the Queens Blvd portion there are several ideas: making (C) an 8 Av express and creating a new (H) 8 Av Local service to serve Queens Blvd Lcl, reducing tph on the (J) / (Z) to increase capacity on the (M) , decreasing overall tph on Queens Blvd Lcl, bringing back (G) to Queens Blvd Lcl if there is no more capacity for trains to Manhattan, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 5:45 PM, Bay Ridge Express said:

<proposal>

In regards to the amount of service proposed, I'm a little wary on those frequencies there. The frequency imbalance has the very real possibility to create more problems than it would solve. Taking a look at the K and R services on 4th Avenue, almost every K local that would run would follow directly behind a more frequent R train, thus leading to an imbalance on usage. If the plan is to supplement the R, the new route must pretty much run in tandem with the R. In my opinion, since both would be intended to be feeders to other lines, they should run at equal frequencies with other lines boosted as needed.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

In regards to the amount of service proposed, I'm a little wary on those frequencies there. The frequency imbalance has the very real possibility to create more problems than it would solve. Taking a look at the K and R services on 4th Avenue, almost every K local that would run would follow directly behind a more frequent R train, thus leading to an imbalance on usage. If the plan is to supplement the R, the new route must pretty much run in tandem with the R. In my opinion, since both would be intended to be feeders to other lines, they should run at equal frequencies with other lines boosted as needed.

Good point. Whitehall limits the (W) to 6 tph and overall Astoria runs 15tph so if the (R) were to go to Astoria it should run 9 tph. Bay Ridge only runs 10 tph but historically has run up to 20 so with the (W) and (K) having the same tph of 6 service should be more even.

So (R) 9 tph, (W) 6 tph, (K) 6 tph would be better. 

Ideally, each service should run 7.5 tph, but Whitehall terminal is a big factor imo (unless you were to short turn some trains at City Hall/Canal or extend to Coney Island) and I'm also not really sure what the limit is for tph on the (K) at either Chambers, Canal, or Bowery.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Good point. Whitehall limits the (W) to 6 tph and overall Astoria runs 15tph so if the (R) were to go to Astoria it should run 9 tph. Bay Ridge only runs 10 tph but historically has run up to 20 so with the (W) and (K) having the same tph of 6 service should be more even.

So (R) 9 tph, (W) 6 tph, (K) 6 tph would be better. 

Ideally, each service should run 7.5 tph, but Whitehall terminal is a big factor imo (unless you were to short turn some trains at City Hall/Canal or extend to Coney Island) and I'm also not really sure what the limit is for tph on the (K) at either Chambers, Canal, or Bowery.

You can do much more than 6 at Whitehall, you just have to be good about getting crews in the right place (ie ready to board at the outbound end) at the right time (as soon as an inbound arrived). The EE in its day ran 15tph; I'm sure some turned at Canal, but would not be at all surprised to know that Whitehall could turn 10-12tph.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

You can do much more than 6 at Whitehall, you just have to be good about getting crews in the right place (ie ready to board at the outbound end) at the right time (as soon as an inbound arrived). The EE in its day ran 15tph; I'm sure some turned at Canal, but would not be at all surprised to know that Whitehall could turn 10-12tph.

Some did turn at Canal

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=720820

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

You can do much more than 6 at Whitehall, you just have to be good about getting crews in the right place (ie ready to board at the outbound end) at the right time (as soon as an inbound arrived). The EE in its day ran 15tph; I'm sure some turned at Canal, but would not be at all surprised to know that Whitehall could turn 10-12tph.

Right. They should be able to run at least 8 tph apiece on both the (K) and (W).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 6:53 PM, Around the Horn said:

I vaguely remember seeing them somewhere south of Marine Avenue and north of 101st Street (after 4th and 5th Avenues merge and the street makes a slight turn) but I went back later and couldn't find them. So either I misremembered seeing them as a kid or the covers were swapped out at some point.

There are absolutely no manholes saying "NYCT" between 95 and 101. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Bay Ridge-Nassau Street service that runs in tandem with the (R) like the old <R> Banker's special, but with expanded hours is probably the best way to solve the problem without any construction IMO. 95th street should have enough capacity to turn those trains. Essex would probably be the cause of the upper limit on capacity, as if you look at the track map, the distance that would have to be covered on a single track is rather long.

With a little construction, the old four-track Nassau config could probably be restored, and termination could be done in the middle of Canal street, thus allowing for more frequency. As a bonus, a couple trains each morning and evening (maybe 2-3) before morning rush and then 2-3 after evening rush, could run to Broadway Junction if they need ENY access. Apologies if this proposal already came up earlier in the thread.

 

Also, and unrelated, why did they reconfigure Nassau? What possible benefit was gained by removing two tracks from service and adding a bunch of slow curves to Brooklyn-bound service?

Share this post


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

Also, and unrelated, why did they reconfigure Nassau? What possible benefit was gained by removing two tracks from service and adding a bunch of slow curves to Brooklyn-bound service?

Cost savings was the reason behind the switch. The old configuration required the two platforms at Bowery and Canal St to be maintained for normal service. Shifting everything to the former downtown local and downtown express tracks meant they could close off the now-unused Williamsburg-bound platforms at those stations. It also meant they only had to rehab the visible parts of those stations as well.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

A Bay Ridge-Nassau Street service that runs in tandem with the (R) like the old <R> Banker's special, but with expanded hours is probably the best way to solve the problem without any construction IMO. 95th street should have enough capacity to turn those trains. Essex would probably be the cause of the upper limit on capacity, as if you look at the track map, the distance that would have to be covered on a single track is rather long.

With a little construction, the old four-track Nassau config could probably be restored, and termination could be done in the middle of Canal street, thus allowing for more frequency. As a bonus, a couple trains each morning and evening (maybe 2-3) before morning rush and then 2-3 after evening rush, could run to Broadway Junction if they need ENY access. Apologies if this proposal already came up earlier in the thread.

Also, and unrelated, why did they reconfigure Nassau? What possible benefit was gained by removing two tracks from service and adding a bunch of slow curves to Brooklyn-bound service?

As I would do it, trains would in fact be from Bay Ridge to Essex as a "Brown (K)" OR as a (Z) line of its own, with scheduled in service yard runs from and to Broadway Junction that would be noted as such in the schedule..

As noted, the reason the configuration was changed was only having to have one platform at Canal and Bowery for the (J) and (Z).  Before the change, what used to be the "express tracks" were in fact northbound terminal tracks and there used to be a walkway between the southbound and northbound platforms at Canal that was done away with when the "downtown express" track became the "uptown" track.  The only way I can see this changing is if the SAS were eventually connected to the Nassau line and continued to Brooklyn.  

Share this post


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

A Bay Ridge-Nassau Street service that runs in tandem with the (R) like the old <R> Banker's special, but with expanded hours is probably the best way to solve the problem without any construction IMO. 95th street should have enough capacity to turn those trains. Essex would probably be the cause of the upper limit on capacity, as if you look at the track map, the distance that would have to be covered on a single track is rather long.

With a little construction, the old four-track Nassau config could probably be restored, and termination could be done in the middle of Canal street, thus allowing for more frequency. As a bonus, a couple trains each morning and evening (maybe 2-3) before morning rush and then 2-3 after evening rush, could run to Broadway Junction if they need ENY access. Apologies if this proposal already came up earlier in the thread.

 

Also, and unrelated, why did they reconfigure Nassau? What possible benefit was gained by removing two tracks from service and adding a bunch of slow curves to Brooklyn-bound service?

But when you run the (R) and <R> in tandem, you’ll have a long gap between first two trains and the next two. Unless the headways between each (R) and <R> train are more evenly spaced out, I can see riders continuing to gripe.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

But when you run the (R) and <R> in tandem, you’ll have a long gap between first two trains and the next two. Unless the headways between each (R) and <R> train are more evenly spaced out, I can see riders continuing to gripe.

I figured that more-or-less even frequencies were implied. I'm sorry if  it wasn't clear. Services, as a rule, really shouldn't be scheduled to bunch.

Share this post


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

I figured that more-or-less even frequencies were implied. I'm sorry if  it wasn't clear. Services, as a rule, really shouldn't be scheduled to bunch.

It’s not the scheduling - it’s the relays in Queens and 49th St that’s causing the problem.

In any change that doesn’t modify (R)’s route, the second service on 4th Av would have to become the Primary service - if only to make sure train station show up close to on-time and at the scheduled frequency. Just like it is overnight when (N) and (R) share Montague.

It also means (M) would have to be the primary local on QBL - which affects (F) on 6th Av and (E) on QBL, and (C) and possibly (A) on 8th Av, for starters.

@RR503 wasn’t kidding about how every part of the B division would have some modification if 4th Av’s fix isn’t simple.

  • Upvote 3

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.