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.
Around the Horn

Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Deucey said:

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.

There are pretty much only 3 changes one can make to 4th without causing a massive cascade across the B division. 

- Extend (W) to Bay Ridge

- Extend some service from Nassau to Bay Ridge

- Deinterline 34th St, so all (N)s run to 96. 

Beyond that, you're in the woods, though I'd argue that's a good thing. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

There are pretty much only 3 changes one can make to 4th without causing a massive cascade across the B division. 

- Extend (W) to Bay Ridge

- Extend some service from Nassau to Bay Ridge

- Deinterline 34th St, so all (N)s run to 96. 

Beyond that, you're in the woods, though I'd argue that's a good thing. 

But wouldn’t just keeping (N) from stopping at 49th St solve “some” of the problem (assuming (W) service is increased slightly)?

Share this post


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

But wouldn’t just keeping (N) from stopping at 49th St solve “some” of the problem (assuming (W) service is increased slightly)?

Not really. You move the merge from a 13mph switch to a 20mph switch, yes, but the basic issue of a capacity-limited and delay-prone service pattern on a key route remains. (W) service also can't be increased without killing an equal number of (N)s -- Astoria's 15tph turning capacity makes their balance a zero sum game (though you can always run unequal mixes north/south, as they do today). 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 8:08 PM, RR503 said:

There are pretty much only 3 changes one can make to 4th without causing a massive cascade across the B division. 

- Extend (W) to Bay Ridge

- Extend some service from Nassau to Bay Ridge

- Deinterline 34th St, so all (N)s run to 96. 

Beyond that, you're in the woods, though I'd argue that's a good thing. 

Or what is done is a new signal box is put in at 5th Avenue going south that would allow the (N)(R) and (W) train operators to go to either the express or local track from THERE AND allow the (N)(R)(W) to do their merge northbound after 57th Street.  That likely would be much easier and at least southbound eliminate the need for the (N) going local southbound above 34th.

Share this post


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

Or what is done is a new signal box is put in at 5th Avenue going south that would allow the (N)(R) and (W) train operators to go to either the express or local track from THERE AND allow the (N)(R)(W) to do their merge northbound after 57th Street.  That likely would be much easier and at least southbound eliminate the need for the (N) going local southbound above 34th.

You’ve just moved the merge to another place while still underserving 2nd and Astoria.

Share this post


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

Or what is done is a new signal box is put in at 5th Avenue going south that would allow the (N)(R) and (W) train operators to go to either the express or local track from THERE AND allow the (N)(R)(W) to do their merge northbound after 57th Street.  That likely would be much easier and at least southbound eliminate the need for the (N) going local southbound above 34th.

On 6/10/2019 at 9:48 PM, RR503 said:

Not really. You move the merge from a 13mph switch to a 20mph switch, yes, but the basic issue of a capacity-limited and delay-prone service pattern on a key route remains. (W) service also can't be increased without killing an equal number of (N)s -- Astoria's 15tph turning capacity makes their balance a zero sum game (though you can always run unequal mixes north/south, as they do today). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Provided that someone at the MTA doesn't drag out something bonkers, if they actually want to attempt to fix anything I expect they'll propose some kind of stop-gap service between Nassau and 95th Street; they're probably not looking to turn the entire B Division upside down, as positive as it might be in the long term.

It's incredibly unlikely any reasonable service changes will come out of this complaining though. Enjoy the garbage 3-borough local.

Share this post


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

Provided that someone at the MTA doesn't drag out something bonkers, if they actually want to attempt to fix anything I expect they'll propose some kind of stop-gap service between Nassau and 95th Street; they're probably not looking to turn the entire B Division upside down, as positive as it might be in the long term.

It's incredibly unlikely any reasonable service changes will come out of this complaining though. Enjoy the garbage 3-borough local.

The problem is that attempting to will result in running headlong into a routing issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Threxx said:

Provided that someone at the MTA doesn't drag out something bonkers, if they actually want to attempt to fix anything I expect they'll propose some kind of stop-gap service between Nassau and 95th Street; they're probably not looking to turn the entire B Division upside down, as positive as it might be in the long term.

It's incredibly unlikely any reasonable service changes will come out of this complaining though. Enjoy the garbage 3-borough local.

As great as going further would be, I don't see the MTA doing much other than extending the (W) to Bay Ridge. We could maybe see some Broadway de-interlining in the future but it would probably only result in a (W) service increase and the (N) to 96th. 

Share this post


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

As great as going further would be, I don't see the MTA doing much other than extending the (W) to Bay Ridge. We could maybe see some Broadway de-interlining in the future but it would probably only result in a (W) service increase and the (N) to 96th. 

Still think the best solution is a new "Brown (K)" between 95th and Essex with in-service yard runs that are extended to Broadway Junction both ways,  On weekends (and possibly also overnights) if they decide not to make the (M) extension to 96th permament, this "Brown (K)" can be extended to Metropolitan at those times.  

Share this post


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

Still think the best solution is a new "Brown (K)" between 95th and Essex with in-service yard runs that are extended to Broadway Junction both ways,  On weekends (and possibly also overnights) if they decide not to make the (M) extension to 96th permament, this "Brown (K)" can be extended to Metropolitan at those times.  

I’m more “convinced that the better solution would be (N)(Q) to 96th, (W) as the primary local to Bay Ridge and Astoria, and (R) as supplemental from Bay Ridge to Continental, but you’d have to redo (J)(M) and (F) scheduling to make it work, and possibly (A)(C)(E)(B)(D)  as well.

Unless you split the (R) and bring back (V) to replace the QBL segment, but where to terminate (V)?

Share this post


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

I’m more “convinced that the better solution would be (N)(Q) to 96th, (W) as the primary local to Bay Ridge and Astoria, and (R) as supplemental from Bay Ridge to Continental, but you’d have to redo (J)(M) and (F) scheduling to make it work, and possibly (A)(C)(E)(B)(D)  as well.

Unless you split the (R) and bring back (V) to replace the QBL segment, but where to terminate (V)?

If you are going to involve QBL, then have the (N)(Q) to 96th, (R) to Astoria, and keep the (W) as-is. For QBL you would send the (M) via 63rd while a (K) service runs Forest Hills-WTC via QBL local/53rd to reduce crowds on the (E).

Share this post


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

I’m more “convinced that the better solution would be (N)(Q) to 96th, (W) as the primary local to Bay Ridge and Astoria, and (R) as supplemental from Bay Ridge to Continental, but you’d have to redo (J)(M) and (F) scheduling to make it work, and possibly (A)(C)(E)(B)(D)  as well.

Unless you split the (R) and bring back (V) to replace the QBL segment, but where to terminate (V)?

Probably Whitehall St. If the (W) becomes the primary Broadway/4th Ave local between Bay Ridge and Astoria, the ( V ) can simply replace the (R) between Continental and Whitehall. Then the ( R ) becomes the supplemental 4th Ave local between Bay Ridge and Essex. We’d still have a three-borough local as the primary 4th Ave local service, but at least it wouldn’t be subject to the shitshow delays on QBL. And we’d be able to keep the (N) on the express in Manhattan and increase service to Astoria and 2nd Ave. We would be locked into the current Astoria and Broadway service patterns with a Nassau ( R ) train acting as the primary local in Brooklyn.

But with the (W) graduating to 24/7 operation, the ( V ) would likely be a weekday service, so the (M) would also become a seven-day service between Continental and Metro, as it would be needed to make up for the loss of the weekend (R)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2019 at 6:30 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

If you are going to involve QBL, then have the (N)(Q) to 96th, (R) to Astoria, and keep the (W) as-is. For QBL you would send the (M) via 63rd while a (K) service runs Forest Hills-WTC via QBL local/53rd to reduce crowds on the (E).

I just think it's easier to have the "Brown (K) " as noted and otherwise keep everything else as is for now as you would not need to change a myriad of lines.  The only significant change in this would be the elimination of the late-night (R) shuttle since this new (K) would cover every station on the late-night (R) except Whitehall Street (plus Fulton and Chambers for those looking for the IRT and (A) lines in Manhattan), and anyone specifically looking for Whitehall can do a same platform transfer to the (N) during those hours anywhere between 59th and Court.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I just think it's easier to have the "Brown (K) " as noted and otherwise keep everything else as is for now as you would not need to change a myriad of lines.  The only significant change in this would be the elimination of the late-night (R) shuttle since this new (K) would cover every station on the late-night (R) except Whitehall Street (plus Fulton and Chambers for those looking for the IRT and (A) lines in Manhattan), and anyone specifically looking for Whitehall can do a same platform transfer to the (N) during those hours anywhere between 59th and Court.  

Right, the Brown K (which I’ve been referring to as R in my proposal) and keeping everything else the same is easier. On the other hand, the Brown K forces everything else to stay the same. Unless you run an Astoria-Whitehall (W) service on 15 tph as the sole Broadway Local. You wouldn’t be able to run a Forest Hills-Whitehall service concurrently, because Whitehall can’t turn both. I think that would have bigger yard issues than an Astoria-Bay Ridge (W)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random “out there” thought:

Any reason (MTA) shouldn’t consider converting the Astoria Line to IRT spec and making it a (7) spur, and running (N) to 96th with (Q)?

 

Share this post


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

Random “out there” thought:

Any reason (MTA) shouldn’t consider converting the Astoria Line to IRT spec and making it a (7) spur, and running (N) to 96th with (Q)?

 

Assuming you could connect them, how would you terminate those (7) spurs in Manhattan? 

Share this post


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

Random “out there” thought:

Any reason (MTA) shouldn’t consider converting reverting the Astoria Line to IRT spec and making it a (7) spur, and running (N) to 96th with (Q)?

 

Because that would only benefit those going to the portion of Midtown in the vicinity of Grand Central?

Because that would come back to bite hard with Phase 3?

Because that would utterly screw up the other pipe dream of taking the (R) off of Queens Boulevard?

Share this post


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

Random “out there” thought:

Any reason (MTA) shouldn’t consider converting the Astoria Line to IRT spec and making it a (7) spur, and running (N) to 96th with (Q)?

 

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Because that would only benefit those going to the portion of Midtown in the vicinity of Grand Central?

Because that would come back to bite hard with Phase 3?

Because that would utterly screw up the other pipe dream of taking the (R) off of Queens Boulevard?

 

Plus, it would take service away from the Flushing part of the Flushing Line.

Share this post


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

Because that would utterly screw up the other pipe dream of taking the (R) off of Queens Boulevard?

Care to elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/16/2019 at 4:39 PM, Deucey said:

Unless you split the (R) and bring back (V) to replace the QBL segment, but where to terminate (V)?

You could also bring the (G) back to FH71 to fill the gap left by cutting the (R). It would work because many QBL rider just hop on the express or (7) when they get the chance, or they could get the (L) if they're headed downtown, or they could get the (Q) via the (F).

Edited by kosciusko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(R) is needed on Queens Blvd Line to provide one seat Broadway service to and from Manhattan without transferring to another train.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (R) is also a local counterpart/feeder line as the Queens Blvd local tracks feed onto the Broadway local tracks, which in turn feed onto the 4th Avenue local tracks. The local tracks stretch the entire length of all three corridors mention. If you need express service, that's what the (E) and (F) is for in Queens, as well as the (N) in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

You could also bring the (G) back to FH71 to fill the gap left by cutting the (R). It would work because many QBL rider just hop on the express or (7) when they get the chance, or they could get the (L) if they're headed downtown, or they could get the (Q) via the (F).

But why? If the whole purpose of this exercise is to increase Manhattan-bound capacity, why are we using space on QB local that could be used by trains from Manhattan for (G) service? 

One major goal of any deinterlining plan for Queens must be rectifying that express/local imbalance. We aren't getting new tubes anytime soon and the expresses are maxed out. In this respect, too, the (G) doesn't cut it. 

42 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

(R) is needed on Queens Blvd Line to provide one seat Broadway service to and from Manhattan without transferring to another train.

The most compelling argument for keeping the (R) is not so much access to Broadway -- 6th/8th get most of its service area, transfers are available at Lex-63, and the (6) at 51 can cover whatever is left -- but keeping the connection to Lex express trains at Lex-59 for Lower Manhattan commuters. Would it be the worst thing from a systemic point of view if Queens Boulevard-Lower Manhattan riders were pushed to alternate routes south? No, and if we're doing some flavor of (N) to Queens Boulevard, they could still transfer at 14. But it's nevertheless a good sized market, which is why the 63-59 transfer is so often brought up in these discussions. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

(R) is needed on Queens Blvd Line to provide one seat Broadway service to and from Manhattan without transferring to another train.

 

I don’t really see why this is needed- 6th is close also, and if you  go for an (E)(F)(K)(M) pattern you can easily transfer at 63rd. 

As for how tracks feed into certain lines, 60th feeds into Astoria while 53rd feeds to QBL local and 63rd feeds to QBL express. Since having all express via 63rd and all local via 53rd seems overkill, I would just implement a CPW-style service pattern.

All of this is (hopefully) complimented by a passageway between Lex-63 and Lex-59.

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.