Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

[bulk88]

Extend every other  or to bay ridge 95 and be done with it. Other choice is rerate all MOW trains to 30 mph or 40 mph from 20 mph so they can travel from CI to Concourse without slowing down service. Why are MOW trains stored 10 miles from their GO sites anyways? Something is wrong when it takes longer for a MOW train to go from its Yard to its GO site every night, than PABT to Philly by Highway.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bulk88 said:

Extend every other  or to bay ridge 95 and be done with it. Other choice is rerate all MOW trains to 30 mph or 40 mph from 20 mph so they can travel from CI to Concourse without slowing down service. Why are MOW trains stored 10 miles from their GO sites anyways? Something is wrong when it takes longer for a MOW train to go from its Yard to its GO site every night, than PABT to Philly by Highway.

Speed increase would help, but I believe there are some technical barriers you hit there.

There has been a *slow* effort to distribute work sets across the system, but the zombie caravan from 38th still lives. Moving as many work trains as possible out of there to yards where it makes sense to have them should be a priority, as well as CBTC compatibility so that  QB don't die whenever they need to do work. There also needs to just be better organization of work trains -- they're supposed to be released at 0400-0430 which gives them plenty of time to get back to the yard, yet they rarely are. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I wonder if lack of space in those three lines’ yards may be one factor for why they currently don’t have work trains based there, but given the reliability problems systemwide, Transit really needs to look into dedicated space in other yards for work trains so they can get to (and from) where they need to be faster for overnight or emergency work. The recent work train issues on 4th Ave are also factoring into the ’s poor reliability on the Brooklyn end, so you combine that with the regularly scheduled drama on QB, and this is what you get. But the work train problem is also affecting the ,  and early morning , so if you bring the , , another Nassau service, or an expanded  , they too, will be affected by that.

[LGA Link N Train]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I wonder if lack of space in those three lines’ yards may be one factor for why they currently don’t have work trains based there, but given the reliability problems systemwide, Transit really needs to look into dedicated space in other yards for work trains so they can get to (and from) where they need to be faster for overnight or emergency work. The recent work train issues on 4th Ave are also factoring into the ’s poor reliability on the Brooklyn end, so you combine that with the regularly scheduled drama on QB, and this is what you get. But the work train problem is also affecting the ,  and early morning , so if you bring the , , another Nassau service, or an expanded  , they too, will be affected by that.

If that's the case, then besides the SPEED Unit, what is the doing to combat the general issues on 4th Avenue? I've only been to the 4th Avenue Portion of the and lines twice in my lifetime so I don't know much about what happens down there.  

As for the issue of Work Trains. (I think someone already mentioned this before) But wouldn't it make more sense to Send Work Trains to designated yards? This way, whenever a Delay occurs, Like a Malfunctioning train or other work like disposing of the trash and whatnot, the work trains would already be in position to respond to whatever duty they're tasked to do without having to perform any extra mileage. (Particularly from 36th Street-38th Street Yard)

[Lawrence St]

10 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If that's the case, then besides the SPEED Unit, what is the doing to combat the general issues on 4th Avenue? I've only been to the 4th Avenue Portion of the and lines twice in my lifetime so I don't know much about what happens down there.  

As for the issue of Work Trains. (I think someone already mentioned this before) But wouldn't it make more sense to Send Work Trains to designated yards? This way, whenever a Delay occurs, Like a Malfunctioning train or other work like disposing of the trash and whatnot, the work trains would already be in position to respond to whatever duty they're tasked to do without having to perform any extra mileage. (Particularly from 36th Street-38th Street Yard)

Apparently 36th St yard is better suited for work trains which makes no sense. What I dont get is why they dont lay them up on West End M track instead of 4th Av N/B Exp.

[JeremiahC99]

32 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Apparently 36th St yard is better suited for work trains which makes no sense. What I dont get is why they dont lay them up on West End M track instead of 4th Av N/B Exp.

The West End M track is outdoors, so laying them up for long periods of time may not be good during the winter season. Additionally, during the midday and weekends, they may need to have that middle track unoccupied to run trains express in one direction if local track construction warranted.

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Apparently 36th St yard is better suited for work trains which makes no sense. What I dont get is why they dont lay them up on West End M track instead of 4th Av N/B Exp.

38th Street yard has room for trucks to haul away debris; obviously you can't do that on the middle track of West End.

[Mysterious2train]

Surprised nobody's talking/talked about how Rose's letter and press release originally named "MTA Chairman" Andy Byford, even though the first post of this thread has the version with the error. It's a small mistake, but it is telling.

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by Mysterious2train

[Trainmaster5]

When I see the comments about work trains I wonder exactly what the posters are referring to. A diesel with a flatcar is a work rain, likewise a diesel with a crane car. A CWR train or a Roadmaster consist are also work trains. What I’m saying is that there is no standardized rule about them. Westchester yard and 36th St yard were the home bases when I worked them. Westchester had a separate diesel barn where those units were serviced but I have picked up work trains there, at 239th, 240th, East 180, Concourse, C.I., Corona, Lenox, and Livonia. I have transferred work trains from Corona to ENY, 36th to Prospect Park to Concourse in sub-freezing temperatures. Each instance was different. Diesel pulling a flat car is a different speed from operating from a flat being pushed by a diesel. Same applies to a diesel crane combo and if the crane car is carrying rails that’s another restriction. The CWR train obviously can’t speed up because of the weight it’s carrying. A Roadmaster is/was a heavy duty work train with diesels on both ends Ain’t no CWR or Roadmaster barreling down the road at 20+mph unless the operating crew is suicidal or already dead. That type of consist takes forever to stop on level ground. As someone pointed out earlier if those trains were queued up on the West End, Culver, Pelham, WPR, or Concourse lines, and a service disruption happened each one of those corridors would be screwed up instead of just the 4th Avenue line in Brooklyn. BTW a question for the  folks who are being screwed over in south Brooklyn. If the line is unreliable because of it’s length on Queens Blvd. does it make sense to extend the  down there? Run the  from Astoria and turn the  into the old  from Whitehall to Forest Hills. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As someone pointed out earlier if those trains were queued up on the West End, Culver, Pelham, WPR, or Concourse lines, and a service disruption happened each one of those corridors would be screwed up instead of just the 4th Avenue line in Brooklyn.

What’s key to understand though is that the baseline burden of work train service on 4th Ave is a disruption in and of itself. That’s why many of us suggest spreading the burden away from 36 to other yards. 

FWIW, I’d actually much prefer to have a caravan of work trains on any of the lines you mentioned above than have the same  on 4th ave. All of those corridors can/do run full service on their local tracks, meaning if dispatchers need the express tracks to hold work trains for lineups/GO readiness, they won’t be screwing service in a big way. Just my 2 cents. 

6 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

BTW a question for the  folks who are being screwed over in south Brooklyn. If the line is unreliable because of it’s length on Queens Blvd. does it make sense to extend the  down there? Run the  from Astoria and turn the  into the old  from Whitehall to Forest Hills. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Whitehall can’t turn sufficient tph and route length isn’t really the issue, plus the  adds some new O/D. Good, no? 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

When I see the comments about work trains I wonder exactly what the posters are referring to. A diesel with a flatcar is a work rain, likewise a diesel with a crane car. A CWR train or a Roadmaster consist are also work trains. What I’m saying is that there is no standardized rule about them. Westchester yard and 36th St yard were the home bases when I worked them. Westchester had a separate diesel barn where those units were serviced but I have picked up work trains there, at 239th, 240th, East 180, Concourse, C.I., Corona, Lenox, and Livonia. I have transferred work trains from Corona to ENY, 36th to Prospect Park to Concourse in sub-freezing temperatures. Each instance was different. Diesel pulling a flat car is a different speed from operating from a flat being pushed by a diesel. Same applies to a diesel crane combo and if the crane car is carrying rails that’s another restriction. The CWR train obviously can’t speed up because of the weight it’s carrying. A Roadmaster is/was a heavy duty work train with diesels on both ends Ain’t no CWR or Roadmaster barreling down the road at 20+mph unless the operating crew is suicidal or already dead. That type of consist takes forever to stop on level ground. As someone pointed out earlier if those trains were queued up on the West End, Culver, Pelham, WPR, or Concourse lines, and a service disruption happened each one of those corridors would be screwed up instead of just the 4th Avenue line in Brooklyn. BTW a question for the  folks who are being screwed over in south Brooklyn. If the line is unreliable because of it’s length on Queens Blvd. does it make sense to extend the  down there? Run the  from Astoria and turn the  into the old  from Whitehall to Forest Hills. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Perhaps that there is the problem. Perhaps there needs some standardized set of rules for operating work trains in a way that they won’t interfere the start of rush hour service. There has to be some sort of alternative to queuing them up on a busy line’s express tracks which see regularly scheduled express service. And maybe spreading the work trains’ home bases out to various (not necessarily all) other yards throughout the system would mean less interference with regular train service, especially during the critical AM rush. Surely there can be some dedicated space in the larger yards to hold the work trains so they don’t have to travel so far to get to and from their work sites. The speed issues are definitely a different story and I understand you can’t stop a Roadmaster-type work train quickly enough so it has to go slow. But if it can travel fewer miles to get to and from its assigned work place, then that too, is a service improvement.

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

Whitehall can’t turn sufficient tph and route length isn’t really the issue, plus the  adds some new O/D. Good, no? 

Yes it does, but the popular consensus on the forums and elsewhere has been to extend the  solely during rush hours. But the ’s poor service issues seem to not be limited to just rush hours, so an extended  should run outside rush hours too. Or perhaps, the primary 4th Ave local train should go to Nassau (the , K,  or another letter) instead of Broadway, while either the  or  would supplement it part time. At least that’s something that ought to be considered for the endless G.O.’s on Queens Blvd.

In no way, am I advocating terminating the Brooklyn section of the  at Court St, like in 2013-14, the way the four Bay Ridge pols initially suggested. I’ve seen enough comments on the Brooklyn Paper’s web page trashing that idea. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Deucey]

The thing I really wonder is if this current iteration of restoring  would even attract ridership - even if it goes to Bay Ridge instead of down West End or Sea Beach. Right now,  to Coney Island at the end of rush hours are empty - even when  platforms are packed. 

And  was cut because of low utilization - along with merging it with .

So does this make more sense than making  run to 96th or Astoria,  from Continental to Whitehall, and just running more  consists?

[B35 via Church]

smh.... The illusion of seclusion diluted by delusion....

Have any split of the R train come to fruition & it'll end up yielding a future calling for a restoration of the "old" (and by that, I mean the current) pattern by these same Bay Ridge area politicians.....

 

[Bay Ridge Express]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

The thing I really wonder is if this current iteration of restoring  would even attract ridership - even if it goes to Bay Ridge instead of down West End or Sea Beach. Right now,  to Coney Island at the end of rush hours are empty - even when  platforms are packed. 

And  was cut because of low utilization - along with merging it with .

So does this make more sense than making  run to 96th or Astoria,  from Continental to Whitehall, and just running more  consists?

One thing to note is that specifically Bay Ridge pols and residents are asking for this. The  is not a good indication of ridership levels on the  because the  is the only line to serve Bay Ridge, while the   all serve 59-Atlantic

[MysteriousBtrain]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

The thing I really wonder is if this current iteration of restoring  would even attract ridership - even if it goes to Bay Ridge instead of down West End or Sea Beach. Right now,  to Coney Island at the end of rush hours are empty - even when  platforms are packed. 

You got to remember that the in Brooklyn is not advertised like other routes as there are only about 5 (regularly) scheduled trips a day; two to Manhattan, three to 86 St. There is a fair amount of people who do use the trips but if it's not advertised there won't be many using the line.

[Deucey]

36 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

One thing to note is that specifically Bay Ridge pols and residents are asking for this. The  is not a good indication of ridership levels on the  because the  is the only line to serve Bay Ridge, while the   all serve 59-Atlantic

No,  was. It got cut for low ridership between downtown Brooklyn and 36th or 59th St - wherever it split.

Because this is an argument for intra-Brooklyn service along 4th Av, the routing of a supplemental service is agreed - 4th Av, but the terminal isn't. 

Which is why I posed my question - creating a variant of  to accommodate this doesn't seem like the best method when something else could be done that solves multiple problems at once - subpar corridor service in Bk, cascading train delays in Midtown because of bad switching operations, and more efficient resource allocation on the service side.

It's all thought experiment anyway - this is just another to contribute.

[Jemorie]

5 minutes ago, Deucey said:

No,  was. It got cut for low ridership between downtown Brooklyn and 36th or 59th St - wherever it split.

Because this is an argument for intra-Brooklyn service along 4th Av, the routing of a supplemental service is agreed - 4th Av, but the terminal isn't. 

Which is why I posed my question - creating a variant of  to accommodate this doesn't seem like the best method when something else could be done that solves multiple problems at once - subpar corridor service in Bk, cascading train delays in Midtown because of bad switching operations, and more efficient resource allocation on the service side.

It's all thought experiment anyway - this is just another to contribute.

Bay Parkway (rush hour only), Chambers Street (middays and evenings) and Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (all other times). And more people on West End and Sea Beach are headed towards Midtown than Downtown. That's why the old  got cut.

[Deucey]

50 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Bay Parkway (rush hour only), Chambers Street (middays and evenings) and Myrtle Avenue-Broadway (all other times). And more people on West End and Sea Beach are headed towards Midtown than Downtown. That's why the old  got cut.

Which is why it doesn't seem to make sense to run a new servicealong the old  route instead of recreating an efficient Broadway-4th Av service pattern.

[Jemorie]

6 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Which is why it doesn't seem to make sense to run a new servicealong the old  route instead of recreating an efficient Broadway-4th Av service pattern.

And also why the  and  are heavily crowded in the peak direction during rush hours on their respective West End and Sea Beach branches. Those who need the 4th Avenue local stops or Lower Manhattan can get off at 59th, 36th or Atlantic for the  across the platform.

Every single time this topic gets brought back up, people propose to have another line to supplement the  on 4th Avenue for obvious reasons, but not nearly so much for the West End and Sea Beach branches which is understandable. And 95th Street-Bay Ridge can handle at least 15 tph unless the diamond switch at that station is old and needs to be replaced, which I kinda doubt. If World Trade Center on the  can handle 15 tph, (which is what that line runs up to during rush hours anyway), why can't 95th Street-Bay Ridge do the exact same?

I do not think neither the  /  or the  will do anything to help because it will only make them even longer than they are now despite the  /  only interacting with one other line along its run. The only way for the  to run regularly more often than average is to split it (between Forest Hills and Whitehall and between Court and 95th like during the Montague closure in late 2013/most of 2014), but that's not really a good idea.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Jemorie

[Jemorie]

On 2/25/2019 at 3:18 PM, Caelestor said:

As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the  nor  are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

 

On 2/27/2019 at 5:30 PM, bobtehpanda said:

If all bridge services move to the Broadway express without stopping at 49 St we can solve this issue forever. Astoria doesn't need an express service, it barely skips any stops til 34th!

Because the thing is, the 60 St tube including Lex/59 and 5/59 are only two tracks due to the narrowness of 60 St. If it weren't for 60 St being too narrow above on street level, the subway level would be four tracks enough to have the  run fully express in Manhattan without stopping at 49 St and possibly 5/59 as well.

And like you said, @Caelestor, the  and  would be left as the only lines to which the  interacts with along its run. However, Forest Hills-71 Av does say otherwise though and the  is actually scheduled to come more frequently during the AM Rush (less so during the PM Rush) if I'm not mistaken.

[RR503]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes it does, but the popular consensus on the forums and elsewhere has been to extend the  solely during rush hours. But the ’s poor service issues seem to not be limited to just rush hours, so an extended  should run outside rush hours too. Or perhaps, the primary 4th Ave local train should go to Nassau (the , K,  or another letter) instead of Broadway, while either the  or  would supplement it part time. At least that’s something that ought to be considered for the endless G.O.’s on Queens Blvd.

The way you fix the  line's reliability issues is through implementing operations rather than routing reform. Full stop. Adding the  into the mix will probably worsen performance if all else is held equal (more merges), as would the  if it goes anywhere but Bay Ridge (36 or 59 would be a more complex merge than Whitehall is today; the  would be involved). Moving the  fully onto Bway Exp is good for overall system capacity and reliability (so do it); moving the  to Astoria is the same, provided a good terminal and a transfer from 59-63. Other than that, reroutes need to be justified on the grounds of service frequency or diversity -- which I believe can be done for the . It'd up frequency when it runs, would provide another destination set to BMT Southern riders (remember, 4th exp and Brighton get cross platforms to it too), and could even help with IRT loads coming out of Downtown Brooklyn. 

17 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

And like you said, @Caelestor, the  and  would be left as the only lines to which the  interacts with along its run. However, Forest Hills-71 Av does say otherwise though and the  is actually scheduled to come more frequently during the AM Rush (less so during the PM Rush) if I'm not mistaken.

Both run 10tph, the limit on their frequencies being terminal ops at FHills. 

[Union Tpke]

10 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The way you fix the  line's reliability issues is through implementing operations rather than routing reform. Full stop. Adding the  into the mix will probably worsen performance if all else is held equal (more merges), as would the  if it goes anywhere but Bay Ridge (36 or 59 would be a more complex merge than Whitehall is today; the  would be involved). Moving the  fully onto Bway Exp is good for overall system capacity and reliability (so do it); moving the  to Astoria is the same, provided a good terminal and a transfer from 59-63. Other than that, reroutes need to be justified on the grounds of service frequency or diversity -- which I believe can be done for the . It'd up frequency when it runs, would provide another destination set to BMT Southern riders (remember, 4th exp and Brighton get cross platforms to it too), and could even help with IRT loads coming out of Downtown Brooklyn. 

Both run 10tph, the limit on their frequencies being terminal ops at FHills. 

I expect something to be done about Astoria by the end of the next Capital Program. OP is aware of the issue, and with Byford in charge, I'd expect it. Sending more s to 96th and some more s to Astoria will need to happen for SAS Phase 2. I think that they are looking into this, and would not be surprised if they do this once enough R211s are in service. I think the 59-63 transfer is necessary, but I can't see them getting funding for it. Perhaps a zoning incentive could be provided to a developer in exchange for the passage like what was done at 51 and Lex/53. 

Here are some improvements that could happen with the East Midtown Rezoning. With a new building going up to replace the Grand Hyatt, expect some additional transit improvements.

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I expect something to be done about Astoria by the end of the next Capital Program. OP is aware of the issue, and with Byford in charge, I'd expect it. Sending more s to 96th and some more s to Astoria will need to happen for SAS Phase 2. I think that they are looking into this, and would not be surprised if they do this once enough R211s are in service. I think the 59-63 transfer is necessary, but I can't see them getting funding for it. Perhaps a zoning incentive could be provided to a developer in exchange for the passage like what was done at 51 and Lex/53. 

 Here are some improvements that could happen with the East Midtown Rezoning. With a new building going up to replace the Grand Hyatt, expect some additional transit improvements.

I'd actually prioritize 59-63 over a lot of those other, non-GCT improvements. Lex 63 has, IINM, the widest and 'cleanest' platforms of any of the East Side-Queens stations. Today, that capacity is largely wasted; bringing even a few pax up from the horror show that is 59th to there would do worlds for dwell times, transfer times, and the general rider experience.

Aren't a lot of those GCT things being done with 1 Vanderbilt? 

I've heard the same re: Astoria. It can't come soon enough. Just a shame that they just rebuilt all those switches without making any geometrical changes. I'm 

I'm pretty sure we have enough cars, now that Canarsie is dead, to do this today. Issue is, as always, $$$$$

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

I'd actually prioritize 59-63 over a lot of those other, non-GCT improvements. Lex 63 has, IINM, the widest and 'cleanest' platforms of any of the East Side-Queens stations. Today, that capacity is largely wasted; bringing even a few pax up from the horror show that is 59th to there would do worlds for dwell times, transfer times, and the general rider experience.

Aren't a lot of those GCT things being done with 1 Vanderbilt? 

I've heard the same re: Astoria. It can't come soon enough. Just a shame that they just rebuilt all those switches without making any geometrical changes. I'm 

I'm pretty sure we have enough cars, now that Canarsie is dead, to do this today. Issue is, as always, $$$$$

Yes, a lot of those GCT things are being done with 1 Vanderbilt. Lex/63 can be very crowded when an F and Q come at the same time in the AM rush. A lot of people go down the stairs to transfer, which is good. However, it can definitely handle more passengers. Do you think a regular passageway should be built, or one with travellators like that removed at Court Square? Agreed on the last point.

[Union Tpke]

Here is the full list of possible improvements as part of the East Midtown Rezoning, not related to One Vanderbilt.

Grand Central

• Widen platform stairs at east end of Flushing platform
• Widen two stairs between uptown Lexington platform and Flushing and Lexington platforms
• Renovate to contemporary standards the south end of the Grand Central Lexington Subway mezzanine from the Shuttle Passageway and 125 Park Avenue entrances to join the renovated areas on the north end of the mezzanine
• Provide new Flushing platform stair and expand transfer passageway to accommodate the addition of the stair
• Replace escalator and stair connecting downtown Lexington platform to underpass with widened stair

Lexington–51/53

• Provide new street entrance to uptown Lexington platform from 50th Street
• Provide widened escalator between 53rd street platform and mezzanine

42nd Street–Bryant Park/Fifth Avenue

• Provide ADA elevator between Flushing platform and mezzanine level
• Provide new street entrance from north side of West 42nd street
• Provide ADA elevator between Sixth Avenue northbound platform and mezzanine level
• Provide ADA elevator between Sixth Avenue southbound platform and mezzanine level

Lexington/59th

• Provide new street stair capacity at northeast and northwest corners of East 60th Street and Lexington Avenue
• Provide ADA elevator between local IRT platform and street level
• Provide ADA elevator between 60th Street (BMT) line platform and mezzanine level
• Provide new platform stair and widen existing stairs between 60th Street (BMT) line platform and mezzanine level
• Provide ADA elevator between northbound local Lexington Avenue Line platform, northbound express Lexington Ave Line platform, and the 60th Street (BMT) line mezzanine
• Provide ADA elevator between southbound local Lexington Avenue Line platform, southbound express Lexington Avenue Line platform, and the 60th Street (BMT) line mezzanine

Fifth Avenue

• Provide new street entrance on East 53rd Street west of Madison Avenue
• Provide a new stairs from mezzanine level to upper platform, and a new stair from upper platform to lower platform
• Provide ADA elevator from mezzanine to upper platform, and to lower platform
• Provide two escalators from mezzanine to upper platform
• Provide new mezzanine area under East 53rd Street with fare control to accommodate street entrance and new access core
• Provide new access core between platforms and street level to accommodate escalators, elevator, and stairs

Rockefeller Center

• Provide two new platform stairs and widen seven platform stairs

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-studies/greater-east-midtown/presentation-cc-0620417.pdf

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans-studies/greater-east-midtown/presentation-cpc-042417.pdf

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/applicants/env-review/gem/tech-memo-03.pdf

Edited March 3, 2019 by Union Tpke