NYCT - Bottlenecks Discussion Thread

[JeremiahC99]

11 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You'd be able to cross a train over to the express tracks, turn it, and then run back out without ever merging w/  service. Optimally we'd have some better, grade separated config, but this is what we've got to work with for now.

So I'm guessing that the  would enter on the local and uses the red switches (and existing black ones) to turn around? How would the  go to Coney Island?

[RR503]

7 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

So I'm guessing that the  would enter on the local and uses the red switches (and existing black ones) to turn around? How would the  go to Coney Island?

No service patterns are changed. It *may* be nice to have that relief valve, however, if/when Coney Island's  tracks run out of terminal capacity and we want to add more  service. 

[JeremiahC99]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

No service patterns are changed. It *may* be nice to have that relief valve, however, if/when Coney Island's  tracks run out of terminal capacity and we want to add more  service. 

Well I guess if we can't run 12 trains to Coney after deinterlining, then that would be a great idea.

And on the map, I also noticed that there was some unused capacity on the Broadway Line and the 8th Avenue Line. These are two places that should deinterlined NOW!!!!! 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That arrangement does look like it would be good to handle a few extra  trains. I never realized how far away the crossover the  uses to turn back at Brighton Beach is so far from the station. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Jemorie]

On 12/16/2019 at 9:47 PM, RR503 said:

Nah, just this. 

You'd be able to cross a train over to the express tracks, turn it, and then run back out without ever merging w/  service. Optimally we'd have some better, grade separated config, but this is what we've got to work with for now.

The diamond crossover north of Brighton Beach should be removed entirely because it is too far away and causes delays if the  is running behind schedule and trains are bunching up severely around the area closer to the terminal. Even if the crossover was directly right outside Brighton Beach to the north, express trains have to leave the station northbound/enter the station southbound at relatively slower than normal speed.

I know you and especially @CenSin (who presumably lives in Coney Island and commutes daily on the  to/from Manhattan based on his/her posts) would disagree with me on this, but I rather have the  relay south of Brighton Beach instead of turning back on either express track already inside the station. It keeps all Manhattan-bound customers solely on the Manhattan-bound platform and all Coney Island-bound customers solely on the Coney Island-bound platform. There has been quite a handful of times where customers dump a  for a , even though the  is not expected to move for another 3-6 minutes on average (rush hour) or 8 minutes (off-peak), partly due to its lousy headways, current scheduling, or current terminal setup. Passengers just randomly jump on the , not knowing the one on the Coney Island-bound express track will pull out first. With more reliable headways and rescheduling, as well as a more -ish Utica Avenue terminal setup, the  can get a quick line up as soon as the  opens its doors at Brighton Beach and pull out roughly at the same time.

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The diamond crossover north of Brighton Beach should be removed entirely because it is too far away and causes delays if the  is running behind schedule and trains are bunching up severely around the area closer to the terminal. Even if the crossover was directly right outside Brighton Beach to the north, express trains have to leave the station northbound/enter the station southbound at relatively slower than normal speed.

I know you and especially @CenSin (who presumably lives in Coney Island and commutes daily on the  to/from Manhattan based on his/her posts) would disagree with me on this, but I rather have the  relay south of Brighton Beach instead of turning back on either express track already inside the station. It keeps all Manhattan-bound customers solely on the Manhattan-bound platform and all Coney Island-bound customers solely on the Coney Island-bound platform. There has been quite a handful of times where customers dump a  for a , even though the  is not expected to move for another 3-6 minutes on average (rush hour) or 8 minutes (off-peak), partly due to its lousy headways, current scheduling, or current terminal setup. Passengers just randomly jump on the , not knowing the one on the Coney Island-bound express track will pull out first. With more reliable headways and rescheduling, as well as a more -ish Utica Avenue terminal setup, the  can get a quick line up as soon as the  opens its doors at Brighton Beach and pull out roughly at the same time.

Strongly disagree here. There's nothing inherently restrictive about the terminal layout at Brighton Beach -- you can move the crossover and achieve more capacity -- and you frankly do not need more capacity there. The  will always limited to [capacity of Dekalb]- throughput, which isn't all that much. Like sure, terminal resiliency is good, but crossover movement + drop back crews could likely get you a theoretical capacity of 30tph, which will almost certainly never be needed. There's also nothing preventing operation of  service such that  leaves just after  -- it's just most people prefer that the  and  align at Newkirk or so so that a maximum of people can transfer onto an express that will skip ahead of the local. 

On the legibility front, people transferring from  usually do so at Sheephead Bay where everything is on the track that it's supposed to be on; the only people who really get subjected to the  confusion are riders originating in Brighton Beach, and they have next train indicators in the mezzanine for their sake.

 

[Jemorie]

7 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Strongly disagree here. There's nothing inherently restrictive about the terminal layout at Brighton Beach -- you can move the crossover and achieve more capacity -- and you frankly do not need more capacity there. The  will always limited to [capacity of Dekalb]- throughput, which isn't all that much. Like sure, terminal resiliency is good, but crossover movement + drop back crews could likely get you a theoretical capacity of 30tph, which will almost certainly never be needed. There's also nothing preventing operation of  service such that  leaves just after  -- it's just most people prefer that the  and  align at Newkirk or so so that a maximum of people can transfer onto an express that will skip ahead of the local. 

On the legibility front, people transferring from  usually do so at Sheephead Bay where everything is on the track that it's supposed to be on; the only people who really get subjected to the  confusion are riders originating in Brighton Beach, and they have next train indicators in the mezzanine for their sake.

So simply put, what will be the point of moving the crossover then? We all know the  is limited by the merges it faces with the , , and , along its run.

The  and  should be departing from both Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay roughly at the same time, instead of constantly at Church Avenue or the  finally showing up immediately after the  is fully platformed at Prospect Park and the  has no choice but to wait outside and follow it through DeKalb. Remember, trains tend to be on time in their earlier portions of their routes much more often than they would in the latter portions of their routes, even when trains on the opposite direction get to the terminal late, though I have noticed @CenSin stated that the  trains he/she often takes in the AM Rush tend to be late and bunched up severely northbound in Brooklyn (before Prospect Park).
 

I’m sorry, but the average passenger more often than not pay no attention at Brighton Beach and just jump on the  that they think will pull out first. If anything, Brighton Express trains should be the ones originating at Coney Island and Brighton Local trains at Brighton Beach, but current track layout says otherwise. So I favor having the  relay at Brighton Beach and having an across platform connection with Manhattan-bound  trains at both that station and Sheepshead Bay instead.

[Lex]

59 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

So simply put, what will be the point of moving the crossover then?

If I understand the proposal correctly, the crossover's not being moved. Instead, this is an addition to foster  short-turns.

[Jemorie]

12 minutes ago, Lex said:

If I understand the proposal correctly, the crossover's not being moved. Instead, this is an addition to foster  short-turns.

I was referring to the crossover on the express tracks north of the station.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

I was referring to the crossover on the express tracks north of the station.

I know.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Jemorie said:

So simply put, what will be the point of moving the crossover then? We all know the  is limited by the merges it faces with the , , and , along its run.

There’s incremental capacity available.  will never run 30, but 15? Sure. 18? Maybe. Getting the infrastructure ready to support those 50-80% service increases would be good, and would also help prevent the ever present post disruption terminal holdouts.

3 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The  and  should be departing from both Brighton Beach and Sheepshead Bay roughly at the same time, instead of constantly at Church Avenue or the  finally showing up immediately after the  is fully platformed at Prospect Park and the  has no choice but to wait outside and follow it through DeKalb. Remember, trains tend to be on time in their earlier portions of their routes much more often than they would in the latter portions of their routes, even when trains on the opposite direction get to the terminal late, though I have noticed @CenSin stated that the  trains he/she often takes in the AM Rush tend to be late and bunched up severely northbound in Brooklyn (before Prospect Park).

I disagree. Synchronizing them that far south means the  will arrive at Prospect Park *just* behind the  in front of the one it connected with. Tying them at Newkirk means that won’t happen, and moreover means that everybody from Newkirk south on the  gets a cross platform connection with an express that’ll end up in the slot in front of the  they boarded at their local stop. It works operationally and from a planning perspective; it’s what should be done and as you say, given the relative reliability of near terminal service, it generally _is_ done. 

3 hours ago, Jemorie said:

I’m sorry, but the average passenger more often than not pay no attention at Brighton Beach and just jump on the  that they think will pull out first. If anything, Brighton Express trains should be the ones originating at Coney Island and Brighton Local trains at Brighton Beach, but current track layout says otherwise. So I favor having the  relay at Brighton Beach and having an across platform connection with Manhattan-bound  trains at both that station and Sheepshead Bay instead.

The average passenger has made that mistake once and knows not to do it again. At any rate, the solution to a customer communication issue is....better comms, not an all out terminal rebuild — one whose final configuration would, by the way, be significantly more costly to operate than current service.

2 hours ago, Lex said:

If I understand the proposal correctly, the crossover's not being moved. Instead, this is an addition to foster  short-turns.

Yes, my proposal for switches for short turn function got conflated with a proposal to turn the  into a relay op at BB. Another reason to oppose  relay, FWIW, is that it would prevent the construction/use of local short turn relays at the station, as s would be occupying the relay slots on the express. 

[Jemorie]

34 minutes ago, RR503 said:

There’s incremental capacity available.  will never run 30, but 15? Sure. 18? Maybe. Getting the infrastructure ready to support those 50-80% service increases would be good, and would also help prevent the ever present post disruption terminal holdouts.

I disagree. Synchronizing them that far south means the  will arrive at Prospect Park *just* behind the  in front of the one it connected with. Tying them at Newkirk means that won’t happen, and moreover means that everybody from Newkirk south on the  gets a cross platform connection with an express that’ll end up in the slot in front of the  they boarded at their local stop. It works operationally and from a planning perspective; it’s what should be done and as you say, given the relative reliability of near terminal service, it generally _is_ done. 

The average passenger has made that mistake once and knows not to do it again. At any rate, the solution to a customer communication issue is....better comms, not an all out terminal rebuild — one whose final configuration would, by the way, be significantly more costly to operate than current service.

Yes, my proposal for switches for short turn function got conflated with a proposal to turn the  into a relay op at BB. Another reason to oppose  relay, FWIW, is that it would prevent the construction/use of local short turn relays at the station, as s would be occupying the relay slots on the express. 

1. NYC Transit surely has enough existing rolling stock to support 10 tph in the reverse peak  service (given the AM peak loads out of Grand Concourse/Central Park West and PM peak loads into Central Park West/Grand Concourse, yet there are still those fewer folks from time to time who bitch and cry that the  should make all local stops to help out the  in the Bronx on weekdays and the  on CPW on weekends...typical). Current  service out of Brooklyn in the AM is maintained at 10 tph (I thought it was lower than that at first).

2. The  takes 17 minutes to get from Brighton Beach to Prospect Park northbound; the  takes 23 minutes to get from Brighton Beach to Prospect Park northbound. If both trains have an across platform connection at Brighton/Sheepshead, that means both trains will be spaced evenly apart, with the  being approximately 5 minutes ahead of the first  from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. However, I see that would cause some nasty bunching of trains due to the current 6 minute headways on both the  and  out of Brooklyn in the AM peak, so understandable. But they can get away with it off-peak, when both lines are maintaining service at 6 tph each (yes, I'm aware that the  got its tph increased from 6 tph to 7.5 tph following its reroute from Astoria to SAS, but I'm just making a generalized observation here, because honestly, a 10 minute headway on the  and an 8 minute headway on the  do not properly mesh anyway; you can do the scheduling math and see). Btw, the across platform connection is better off at Kings Highway (AM Rush only), not Newkirk Plaza. Kings Highway means both lines can still properly mesh their 6 minute headways each together for a 3 minute headway from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. The first  catches up to the first  at Kings Highway, and by Prospect Park, the former is already approximately 4 minutes ahead. Newkirk Plaza seems too close to Church Avenue, so Brighton riders transferring from local to express at Newkirk Plaza just to bypass three stops is...meh. But six stops will do in addition to skipping the two local stops on 6 Av. It's good for a Brighton customer trying to get from, say, Stillwell/W 8/Ocean Pkwy to Grand St (Chinatown, somewhat closer to Canal St Chinatown on the Bway line) or 34 St (first Manhattan CBD station served by both the 6 Av and Bway lines).

3. Who said anything about rebuilding the whole terminal? All I said is to remove the diamond crossover north of the said terminal, but keep the one to the south end for relaying. Fumigation takes 5 minutes anyway. Yes, it's more costly, but it is certainly better to organize Manhattan-bound goers on one side and Coney Island-bound goers in the other. I can surely tell you that operating any line in the system more frequently is much more expensive than relaying and fumigation operations...let alone by one line in question.

4. And I still oppose this  short turn thing. Doesn't the  already operate frequently enough anyway on the entire line in both directions during the peak (10 tph)? If you want more than 10 tph, you might as well just relocate the diamond crossover switch to closer to the north end of the tracks 3 and 4, where northbound s depart from the Coney Island terminal. How the hell does it make sense for some s to short turn at Brighton with relaying, which is just as costly as my  relaying at Brighton proposal anyway? What makes the  so special than the ? It already has its spark.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

1. NYC Transit surely has enough existing rolling stock to support 10 tph in the reverse peak  service (given the AM peak loads out of Grand Concourse/Central Park West and PM peak loads into Central Park West/Grand Concourse, yet there are still those fewer folks from time to time who bitch and cry that the  should make all local stops to help out the  in the Bronx on weekdays and the  on CPW on weekends...typical). Current  service out of Brooklyn in the AM is maintained at 10 tph (I thought it was lower than that at first).

No disagreement from me here! Concourse should have a lot more service than it does today; it's a critical Lex reliever. 

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

2. The  takes 17 minutes to get from Brighton Beach to Prospect Park northbound; the  takes 23 minutes to get from Brighton Beach to Prospect Park northbound. If both trains have an across platform connection at Brighton/Sheepshead, that means both trains will be spaced evenly apart, with the  being approximately 5 minutes ahead of the first  from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. However, I see that would cause some nasty bunching of trains due to the current 6 minute headways on both the  and  out of Brooklyn in the AM peak, so understandable. But they can get away with it off-peak, when both lines are maintaining service at 6 tph each (yes, I'm aware that the  got its tph increased from 6 tph to 7.5 tph following its reroute from Astoria to SAS, but I'm just making a generalized observation here, because honestly, a 10 minute headway on the  and an 8 minute headway on the  do not properly mesh anyway; you can do the scheduling math and see). Btw, the across platform connection is better off at Kings Highway (AM Rush only), not Newkirk Plaza. Kings Highway means both lines can still properly mesh their 6 minute headways each together for a 3 minute headway from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. The first  catches up to the first  at Kings Highway, and by Prospect Park, the former is already approximately 4 minutes ahead. Newkirk Plaza seems too close to Church Avenue, so Brighton riders transferring from local to express at Newkirk Plaza just to bypass three stops is...meh. But six stops will do in addition to skipping the two local stops on 6 Av. It's good for a Brighton customer trying to get from, say, Stillwell/W 8/Ocean Pkwy to Grand St (Chinatown, somewhat closer to Canal St Chinatown on the Bway line) or 34 St (first Manhattan CBD station served by both the 6 Av and Bway lines).

Yeah, you cannot merge one train one minute behind the next. Just doesn't work! Hence the suggestion of timed connections at Newkirk. I certainly get your argument for KH meets, but do think Newkirk is better. For one, the calculation shouldn't be "how many stops do transferring riders get to skip" but instead "how many transferring riders can benefit from a zero penalty connection to a train that'll be slotted ahead of the one behind it/what's their savings" which is a calculation that heavily weights the connection point towards Newkirk. Secondary is the issue of track capacity in/around Dekalb Avenue. Scheduling an even 3 minute headway minimizes the chance of congestion through the crappy track geometry between Atlantic and Dekalb, and also minimizes the impacts of merge delays at Gold St. Newkirk allows a ~3 min headway; it's the one that should be done. 

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

3. Who said anything about rebuilding the whole terminal? All I said is to remove the diamond crossover north of the said terminal, but keep the one to the south end for relaying. Fumigation takes 5 minutes anyway. Yes, it's more costly, but it is certainly better to organize Manhattan-bound goers on one side and Coney Island-bound goers in the other. I can surely tell you that operating any line in the system more frequently is much more expensive than relaying and fumigation operations...let alone by one line in question.

Reconfigure, my bad. The point remains, though, that the benefit of sorting riders at _one_ (not particularly busy) stop simply does not justify the costs involved in extending  round trip runtimes by 10-15 minutes and removing a crossover. The incremental cost incurred there is absolutely enough that it'd be taking away from service increases--that's a 20ish percent increase of  runtime! 

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

4. And I still oppose this  short turn thing. Doesn't the  already operate frequently enough anyway on the entire line in both directions during the peak (10 tph)? If you want more than 10 tph, you might as well just relocate the diamond crossover switch to closer to the north end of the tracks 3 and 4, where northbound s depart from the Coney Island terminal. How the hell does it make sense for some s to short turn at Brighton with relaying, which is just as costly as my  relaying at Brighton proposal anyway? What makes the  so special than the ? It already has its spark.

Nobody is saying we should short turn instead of running to CI or instead of rebuilding CI. Both of those things should be done. However, the genesis of this conversation was the fact that even with moved switches, CI will still suffer from an extremely restrictive signal system design that prevents operation at turning capacities normal for similar ops in the system. I suggested that, if the  needed turning capacity above and beyond what could be provided at CI, this would be a way to create it. This has nothing to do with wanting to create a relay op or the  being "special" -- just a recognition of CI's limitations as a place to turn service.

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

3. Who said anything about rebuilding the whole terminal? All I said is to remove the diamond crossover north of the said terminal, but keep the one to the south end for relaying. Fumigation takes 5 minutes anyway. Yes, it's more costly, but it is certainly better to organize Manhattan-bound goers on one side and Coney Island-bound goers in the other. I can surely tell you that operating any line in the system more frequently is much more expensive than relaying and fumigation operations...let alone by one line in question.

There is Sheepshead Bay for that purpose. I’ve noted that the trains returning to Manhattan are often late straight out of Brighton Beach because the trains from Manhattan are late. Forcing trains to continue further to turn around would exacerbate the problem. The switches should be moved closer to the platforms.

15 hours ago, Jemorie said:

Nah, just this. 

You'd be able to cross a train over to the express tracks, turn it, and then run back out without ever merging w/  service. Optimally we'd have some better, grade separated config, but this is what we've got to work with for now.

For the , the switches at Coney Island should probably be moved closer to the platforms. If infeasible, having Ocean Parkway itself be the short-turn station might be better than fumigating the trains at Brighton Beach (using another switch reconfiguration scheme). If trains are coming frequently enough, the fumigation is a hindrance to service.

 

[Jemorie]

37 minutes ago, RR503 said:

No disagreement from me here! Concourse should have a lot more service than it does today; it's a critical Lex reliever. 

Yeah, you cannot merge one train one minute behind the next. Just doesn't work! Hence the suggestion of timed connections at Newkirk. I certainly get your argument for KH meets, but do think Newkirk is better. For one, the calculation shouldn't be "how many stops do transferring riders get to skip" but instead "how many transferring riders can benefit from a zero penalty connection to a train that'll be slotted ahead of the one behind it/what's their savings" which is a calculation that heavily weights the connection point towards Newkirk. Secondary is the issue of track capacity in/around Dekalb Avenue. Scheduling an even 3 minute headway minimizes the chance of congestion through the crappy track geometry between Atlantic and Dekalb, and also minimizes the impacts of merge delays at Gold St. Newkirk allows a ~3 min headway; it's the one that should be done. 

Reconfigure, my bad. The point remains, though, that the benefit of sorting riders at _one_ (not particularly busy) stop simply does not justify the costs involved in extending  round trip runtimes by 10-15 minutes and removing a crossover. The incremental cost incurred there is absolutely enough that it'd be taking away from service increases--that's a 20ish percent increase of  runtime! 

Nobody is saying we should short turn instead of running to CI or instead of rebuilding CI. Both of those things should be done. However, the genesis of this conversation was the fact that even with moved switches, CI will still suffer from an extremely restrictive signal system design that prevents operation at turning capacities normal for similar ops in the system. I suggested that, if the  needed turning capacity above and beyond what could be provided at CI, this would be a way to create it. This has nothing to do with wanting to create a relay op or the  being "special" -- just a recognition of CI's limitations as a place to turn service.

1. Good to hear. I’ve just reviewed the  timetable (southbound AM peak and northbound PM peak). It has -ish headways, so that’s something that’s worth the agency looking into. I’ve also heard that, during baseball season, the  Bronx Express in the PM peak stops at 161, then crosses back to express afterwards. Bad express right there. Just another one of the ’s typical move to avoid running more  service at 10 tph (and avoiding extending  service hours to BPB later than normal) like the opposite direction already thankfully has. Will review the remaining  timetable and send a note to the agency if need be.

2. I certainly just thought about that after re-reading your point here and calculated it myself. You’re right. I was too obsessively focused on the “number of stops skipped” versus actual reliability, which is why I came up with the across platform connection at Brighton/Sheepshead (and then Kings Hwy) in the first place. Forgive me for that though. So that settles the dust then. As much as I don’t like the Newkirk Av connection, it fully makes the utmost operational sense for a cross platform connection and a perfect 3 minute headway between trains from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. Just a note, though, that Kings Hwy is the still the second (keyword second) best across platform connection between s and s. Only difference is that trains would be alternating headways of 2 minutes and 3 minutes instead of coming in every 3 minutes. Overall, I get the picture.

3. Alright I guess....as much as I personally wish for a more -ish Utica Av-like setup at Brighton Beach, I’ll reluctantly accept your knowledge and @CenSin’s daily commuting experiences about the s and s at Brighton/CI. Just to note (using your words from before) that relatively low service levels=relatively low ridership, including at stations. However, keep in mind that Brighton gets good ridership btw. It is ranked 128th overall after all and as we’ve both agreed earlier, the  has some more room for improvement in terms of frequency and reliability. Yes, Brighton Beach station is not relatively busy, though.

4. Fair enough, I’d assume because of the merge with tracks 5 and 6 at the other end of the platform is why the agency put that horrible signal restrictive system on tracks 3 and 4. Also because of the bend before s come in after stopping/before stopping at W 8. Also, my fault. I got a little heated with my “how the hell” quote but overall, as always, you do raise some honestly fair points that even I cannot come back over anyway. @CenSin did mention just now about Ocean Parkway being a better terminal for some short turning s than Brighton Beach.

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

I’ve noted that the trains returning to Manhattan are often late straight out of Brighton Beach because the trains from Manhattan are late.

Because the ’s headways are shit. Southbound Grand Concourse local trains run every 10 minutes like the entire  line throughout much of the AM peak. The heavy crowds along Grand Concourse and Central Park West, combined with the 75 footers’ longer boarding and dwelling time (in addition to the shorter, 480 feet long  trains) do not help much. That’s why  trains from the Bronx and Manhattan are irregular and negatively impact service back to Manhattan and the Bronx out of Brighton Beach. With better headways and some other adjustments,  trains can more reliably get to Brighton Beach in time for their next scheduled northbound departures, even if they arrive slightly behind schedule, compared to now.

This is another form of bottleneck more or less.

[Union Tpke]

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

Nobody is saying we should short turn instead of running to CI or instead of rebuilding CI. Both of those things should be done. However, the genesis of this conversation was the fact that even with moved switches, CI will still suffer from an extremely restrictive signal system design that prevents operation at turning capacities normal for similar ops in the system. I suggested that, if the  needed turning capacity above and beyond what could be provided at CI, this would be a way to create it. This has nothing to do with wanting to create a relay op or the  being "special" -- just a recognition of CI's limitations as a place to turn service.

Is there anything short of CBTC that could fix the mess that is Coney?

[RR503]

10 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Is there anything short of CBTC that could fix the mess that is Coney?

Not really, no. And for CBTC to be effective, you'd have to move the switches around.

21 hours ago, Jemorie said:

4. Fair enough, I’d assume because of the merge with tracks 5 and 6 at the other end of the platform is why the agency put that horrible signal restrictive system on tracks 3 and 4. Also because of the bend before s come in after stopping/before stopping at W 8. Also, my fault. I got a little heated with my “how the hell” quote but overall, as always, you do raise some honestly fair points that even I cannot come back over anyway. @CenSin did mention just now about Ocean Parkway being a better terminal for some short turning s than Brighton Beach.

Ocean Parkway would face the exact same issue as Stillwell -- extremely restrictive signalling coming into the platform because of active switches lined against traffic at the end of the platform. Do not recommend!

Edited December 23, 2019 by RR503

[Lex]

14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ocean Parkway would face the exact same issue as Stillwell -- extremely restrictive signalling coming into the platform because of active switches lined against traffic at the end of the platform. Do not recommend!

There's also the issue of Ocean Parkway being under no real pressure...

[Jemorie]

@RR503, speaking of CBTC...let me bring this over from the Subway Random Thoughts Thread for a quick sec...

On 12/20/2019 at 12:14 PM, Jemorie said:

Does CBTC makes trains run at regular speed, even when they are 2 minutes away from each other?

I asked @Union Tpke this after he and @NewFlyer 230 complained about the  and  being so close to one another during rush hours when both lines combined operate thirty times an hour between the Forest Hills-71 Av interlocking and the 36 St (Qns) interlocking. However, either @Union Tpke just doesn't know or he just ignored me, but it's whatever. I'm still very curious to ask the same question...I don't ride neither the  or the  anyway, so I don't know. What about you, though, @RR503? If I have to wager a guess to my own question...the current signals on Queens Blvd are so far apart from each other like say, 600 feet apart or so, but if there were many more inbetween, trains at 2 minute headways can be able to run at regular speed rather than constantly be slowed down multiple times between stations?

Thanks.

[Lawrence St]

22 hours ago, Jemorie said:

1. Good to hear. I’ve just reviewed the  timetable (southbound AM peak and northbound PM peak). It has -ish headways, so that’s something that’s worth the agency looking into. I’ve also heard that, during baseball season, the  Bronx Express in the PM peak stops at 161, then crosses back to express afterwards. Bad express right there. Just another one of the ’s typical move to avoid running more  service at 10 tph (and avoiding extending  service hours to BPB later than normal) like the opposite direction already thankfully has. Will review the remaining  timetable and send a note to the agency if need be.

2. I certainly just thought about that after re-reading your point here and calculated it myself. You’re right. I was too obsessively focused on the “number of stops skipped” versus actual reliability, which is why I came up with the across platform connection at Brighton/Sheepshead (and then Kings Hwy) in the first place. Forgive me for that though. So that settles the dust then. As much as I don’t like the Newkirk Av connection, it fully makes the utmost operational sense for a cross platform connection and a perfect 3 minute headway between trains from Prospect Park to DeKalb Av. Just a note, though, that Kings Hwy is the still the second (keyword second) best across platform connection between s and s. Only difference is that trains would be alternating headways of 2 minutes and 3 minutes instead of coming in every 3 minutes. Overall, I get the picture.

3. Alright I guess....as much as I personally wish for a more -ish Utica Av-like setup at Brighton Beach, I’ll reluctantly accept your knowledge and @CenSin’s daily commuting experiences about the s and s at Brighton/CI. Just to note (using your words from before) that relatively low service levels=relatively low ridership, including at stations. However, keep in mind that Brighton gets good ridership btw. It is ranked 128th overall after all and as we’ve both agreed earlier, the  has some more room for improvement in terms of frequency and reliability. Yes, Brighton Beach station is not relatively busy, though.

4. Fair enough, I’d assume because of the merge with tracks 5 and 6 at the other end of the platform is why the agency put that horrible signal restrictive system on tracks 3 and 4. Also because of the bend before s come in after stopping/before stopping at W 8. Also, my fault. I got a little heated with my “how the hell” quote but overall, as always, you do raise some honestly fair points that even I cannot come back over anyway. @CenSin did mention just now about Ocean Parkway being a better terminal for some short turning s than Brighton Beach.

I think the reason why they refuse to run more service in The Bronx is because then all those sets have to go into Concourse, which results in a shortage at CIY.

[Jemorie]

7 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I think the reason why they refuse to run more service in The Bronx is because then all those sets have to go into Concourse, which results in a shortage at CIY.

That is not correct. Remember, the number of trains in passenger service are lower during off-peak hours (especially at night) than they are during peak hours. The  also short turns at 145th middays and evenings. They have enough cars to do it ever since almost all the R179 fleet showed up, so the overall subway system's rolling stock has been expanded. This way, leaving 72nd/entering 59th southbound in the 8 a.m. hour,  trains come in 10 times within that timeframe, and seven times within the 7 a.m. hour and the 9 a.m. hour. Just like they do entering Grand Street northbound. Generally, during the rush, current train requirements for the  is 25 (AM), 23 (PM). Add in 5 more trainsets, that's 30 trainsets total, like the  currently has during the peak.

The running time for the  between BPB and BB is approximately 80 minutes in both directions, without relays, fumigation, and delays. You can do the math. Every line in the system has put-ins and put-outs throughout the peak so...

[NewFlyer 230]

37 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

@RR503, speaking of CBTC...let me bring this over from the Subway Random Thoughts Thread for a quick sec...

I asked @Union Tpke this after he and @NewFlyer 230 complained about the  and  being so close to one another during rush hours when both lines combined operate thirty times an hour between the Forest Hills-71 Av interlocking and the 36 St (Qns) interlocking. However, either @Union Tpke just doesn't know or he just ignored me, but it's whatever. I'm still very curious to ask the same question...I don't ride neither the  or the  anyway, so I don't know. What about you, though, @RR503? If I have to wager a guess to my own question...the current signals on Queens Blvd are so far apart from each other like say, 600 feet apart or so, but if there were many more inbetween, trains at 2 minute headways can be able to run at regular speed rather than constantly be slowed down multiple times between stations?

Thanks.

What tends to hold trains up is Jackson Heights Roosevelt Ave. It is the 2nd most busiest station in Queens behind Main Street and the busiest on the Queens Blvd line. The platforms during rush hour are always packed. If the  and  aren’t already crushloaded , best believe once they leave you literally have no breathing room. That’s why I tell anyone, I hate taking the Queens Blvd express in the morning because while it is faster, your ride is usually uncomfortable, because once the train hits Roosevelt Ave everyone on that platform is squeezing on the train. And then there are always people holding the doors, or the train is being held for the arriving local train and then more people run across the platform and hold the doors. It just a big mess especially with two minute headway’s on the  and  combined. So sometimes the locals actually beat the express, which is why I usually opt for the  and  over the  and  . 

[Jemorie]

4 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

What tends to hold trains up is Jackson Heights Roosevelt Ave. It is the 2nd most busiest station in Queens behind Main Street and the busiest on the Queens Blvd line. The platforms during rush hour are always packed. If the  and  aren’t already crushloaded , best believe once they leave you literally have no breathing room. That’s why I tell anyone, I hate taking the Queens Blvd express in the morning because while it is faster, your ride is usually uncomfortable, because once the train hits Roosevelt Ave everyone on that platform is squeezing on the train. And then there are always people holding the doors, or the train is being held for the arriving local train and then more people run across the platform and hold the doors. It just a big mess especially with two minute headway’s on the  and  combined. So sometimes the locals actually beat the express, which is why I usually opt for the  and  over the  and  . 

I see, thanks! Will keep this in mind.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

@RR503, speaking of CBTC...let me bring this over from the Subway Random Thoughts Thread for a quick sec...

I asked @Union Tpke this after he and @NewFlyer 230 complained about the  and  being so close to one another during rush hours when both lines combined operate thirty times an hour between the Forest Hills-71 Av interlocking and the 36 St (Qns) interlocking. However, either @Union Tpke just doesn't know or he just ignored me, but it's whatever. I'm still very curious to ask the same question...I don't ride neither the  or the  anyway, so I don't know. What about you, though, @RR503? If I have to wager a guess to my own question...the current signals on Queens Blvd are so far apart from each other like say, 600 feet apart or so, but if there were many more inbetween, trains at 2 minute headways can be able to run at regular speed rather than constantly be slowed down multiple times between stations?

Thanks.

As hinted at in the above, it's really a question of dwell times. CBTC definitely will move trains faster given any dwell because you can close in at exactly the safe speed rather than via ST cutbacks (which, being a form of intermittent speed control, will necessarily have to enforce a lower closing speed to preserve safety), but that doesn't mean you're going to be flying into Roosevelt during the rush; CBTC is vulnerable to dwells too. 

Another angle I'd be interested to investigate is the way in which the interlockings at either end of Roosevelt interact with CBTC. CBTC treats interlockings like areas of fixed block control which actually is quite limiting to capacity; I'd love to know how that's working on the . 

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I think the reason why they refuse to run more service in The Bronx is because then all those sets have to go into Concourse, which results in a shortage at CIY.

I mean, no? If you ran more PM peak Concourse local svc you'd also probably be running more AM peak Concourse svc, which would mean you need more trains at Concourse to begin with.