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  
I love NY

New technologies and no interruption of the service

Recommended Posts

I have noted that despite the great improvements (CBTC) on the 7 line, often there are late night interruptions also very important (between 34 Hudson Yards and Queensboro Plaza for example). Why? 

And when there is the Fastrack on the Broadway line, on the  Central Park West line etc, these important routes are totally out of service  weekday late night for 3 weeks!

Will be possible in a next future with other new important tecnologies (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/09/27/mta-tests-ultra-wideband-technology-on-l-train-) to avoid these annoying late night and weekend (https://subwayweekender.wordpress.com/) interruptions and to have a TRUE 24/7/365 subway service?

It seems that it will be possible to repair or replace the signals and tracks in great security without to interrupt the service. It is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely not, any important that requires wayside access will need service disruptions on some level. You can’t replace tracks, signals, 3rd rail, or make many other repairs with trains operating through the area. It’s just not possible.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only tech that can prevent the subway from having service disruptions so that things can be maintained...

 

is the Transporter.

and guess what, even THAT requires maintenance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the Blue and Red lines of Chicago (the only 2 lines 24/7) are always in service and the interruptions are only on 1 track (and the L Chicago has only 2 tracks and not 4 tracks like NYC subway)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, I love NY said:

Why the Blue and Red lines of Chicago (the only 2 lines 24/7) are always in service and the interruptions are only on 1 track (and the L Chicago has only 2 tracks and not 4 tracks like NYC subway)?

Because CTA can run a single-track system because they have full reverse signaling and much better dispatching operations.

@RR503, wanna give specifics here about why we can’t have nice things?

Share this post


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

Because CTA can run a single-track system because they have full reverse signaling and much better dispatching operations.

@RR503, wanna give specifics here about why we can’t have nice things?

Currently the Red and Blue Line are posting to expect delays due to single tracking, despite having a crossover every 2-3 stations on almost the entire route. The (7) posts late night trains are single tracking for signal work, but next week will be out due to track replacement which is an entirely different task. CTA has more flexibility even in that regard since most of the system is above ground and on relatively level ground.

Share this post


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

Because CTA can run a single-track system because they have full reverse signaling and much better dispatching operations.

@RR503, wanna give specifics here about why we can’t have nice things?

Single tracking isn't inherently superior to suspension -- depends on the sort of GO you're doing, what the frequency impact of single tracking is, etc. CTA is undoubtably better at GO planning than we are, though. The thing CTA has going for it is the fact that its maintenance workforce is something like twice as productive per unit worker time as NYCT's, and that's with structures less amenable to work under traffic, loads of complex trackwork and shitty weather.

16 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Currently the Red and Blue Line are posting to expect delays due to single tracking, despite having a crossover every 2-3 stations on almost the entire route. The (7) posts late night trains are single tracking for signal work, but next week will be out due to track replacement which is an entirely different task. CTA has more flexibility even in that regard since most of the system is above ground and on relatively level ground.

It isn't like we _can't_ single track, we just choose not to in many cases. Especially with work involving river tunnels, we've become much more reroute-happy over the years, and generally do not leverage crossovers to the extent they could be. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Single tracking isn't inherently superior to suspension -- depends on the sort of GO you're doing, what the frequency impact of single tracking is, etc. CTA is undoubtably better at GO planning than we are, though. The thing CTA has going for it is the fact that its maintenance workforce is something like twice as productive per unit worker time as NYCT's, and that's with structures less amenable to work under traffic, loads of complex trackwork and shitty weather.

It isn't like we _can't_ single track, we just choose not to in many cases. Especially with work involving river tunnels, we've become much more reroute-happy over the years, and generally do not leverage crossovers to the extent they could be. 

SIR does single tracking for a decent portion of their G/Os; they can get away with it due to their 30 minute headways (except during rush hours, when you're not scheduling any G/Os anyway). Also, the cab signalling certainly helps.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, P3F said:

SIR does single tracking for a decent portion of their G/Os; they can get away with it due to their 30 minute headways (except during rush hours, when you're not scheduling any G/Os anyway). Also, the cab signalling certainly helps.

Absolutely. One of the more exciting features of CBTC installation will be its facilitation of creative reroutes on 4-track lines. We could, for example, run all QB service on D1 and D3 (the southbound local and exp tracks) for a few weekends to install a crossover in the provision by Forest Hills...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toronto is another example of better ops. Was there last weekend and trains were short turning on the eastern section as part of a weekend closure. Trains ran on 5 minute headways with a 2 minute turnaround time using a single pocket terminal operation on a 2 track line. No CBTC or ATO in that section yet. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/11/2019 at 01:51, RR503 said:

Il tracciamento singolo non è intrinsecamente superiore alla sospensione - dipende dal tipo di GO che stai facendo, dall'impatto in frequenza del tracciamento singolo, ecc. CTA è indubbiamente migliore nella pianificazione GO di quanto lo siamo noi, comunque. L'aspetto positivo di CTA è il fatto che la sua manodopera di manutenzione è qualcosa di due volte più produttivo per unità di tempo di lavoro rispetto a quella di New York, e questo è con strutture meno suscettibili di lavorare sotto traffico, carichi di binari complessi e tempo di merda.

Non è che non possiamo _ single track, scegliamo semplicemente di non farlo in molti casi. Soprattutto con il lavoro che coinvolge tunnel fluviali, siamo diventati molto più deviati negli anni e generalmente non sfruttiamo i crossover nella misura in cui potrebbero essere. 

I think that 1 track operation is 100 times better than a complete shutdown, fastrack etc and I think that with a better technology (ultra wideband) and more security on the tracks for the workers it will be surely possible in future. Before of the arrival of Lhota it was the norm...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 7:51 PM, RR503 said:

It isn't like we _can't_ single track, we just choose not to in many cases. Especially with work involving river tunnels, we've become much more reroute-happy over the years, and generally do not leverage crossovers to the extent they could be. 

The MTA's cost-minimizing philosophy on crossovers: don't use it, might be unreliable -> locks into place from lack of use -> can't use it, unreliable.

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

The MTA's cost-minimizing philosophy on crossovers: don't use it, might be unreliable -> locks into place from lack of use -> can't use it, unreliable.

 

Lafayette is an example of this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Lafayette is an example of this.

My fingers and toes are crossed that that area gets revamped as a part of Fulton CBTC so we can single track Hoyt-Jay instead of doing those godawful Utica bustitutions. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 4:51 PM, RR503 said:

Single tracking isn't inherently superior to suspension -- depends on the sort of GO you're doing, what the frequency impact of single tracking is, etc. CTA is undoubtably better at GO planning than we are, though. The thing CTA has going for it is the fact that its maintenance workforce is something like twice as productive per unit worker time as NYCT's, and that's with structures less amenable to work under traffic, loads of complex trackwork and shitty weather.

It is also worth noting that CTA is far more likely to shut down entire stretches of busy lines.

Quote

Construction plan

To complete the work as quickly and effectively as possible, the Red Line completely closed on May 19, 2013, from Cermak-Chinatown through 95th/Dan Ryan. Red Line trains were rerouted south of Roosevelt via the nearby elevated structure Green Line trains use between downtown and Ashland/63rd.

The closure of the Red Line to 95th lasted five months, and impacted the nine Red Line stations from Cermak-Chinatown through 95th/Dan Ryan.

This option was the quickest, most efficient and most cost-effective way to complete this complex project.

Here are some of the benefits of this plan:

  • Shortest project duration—5 months vs. 4 years of weekend-only work
  • Lowest cost—$75 million in project savings reinvested into local transit improvements to South Red Line stations, including new elevators at Garfield, 63rd and 87th, as well as station improvements to eight stations including painting, lighting repairs and other upgrades. Additionally, the cost savings allowed CTA to provide extensive alternative service throughout the project.
  • Quicker trips and more frequent trains, sooner

Service alternatives

During construction, we offered extensive alternate service, providing multiple options for commuters.

  • 24-hour Red Line service as far south as 63rd Street via South Side Elevated tracks (normally used only by Green Line services) from Roosevelt through Ashland/63rd.
  • Free express shuttle buses with 24-hour, express service from 69th, 79th, 87th and 95th/Dan Ryan stations to the Garfield station on the South Side Elevated (for connections with Green Line and rerouted 24-hour Red Line services to/from Howard, there).
  • A local, station-to-station shuttle from 63rd to 95th/Dan Ryan and a fifth shuttle provided express service between the Roosevelt and Cermak-Chinatown stations for local trips not closely served by rerouted Red and Green Line services.
  • Free rail entry for shuttle bus riders at Garfield on the Green Line.
  • 50-cent-discounted bus rides on many South Side routes.
  • Expanded bus service on existing routes.
  • For some riders, Metra Electric District services were also a good alternative.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/20/2019 at 7:51 PM, RR503 said:

Single tracking isn't inherently superior to suspension -- depends on the sort of GO you're doing, what the frequency impact of single tracking is, etc. CTA is undoubtably better at GO planning than we are, though. The thing CTA has going for it is the fact that its maintenance workforce is something like twice as productive per unit worker time as NYCT's, and that's with structures less amenable to work under traffic, loads of complex trackwork and shitty weather.

It isn't like we _can't_ single track, we just choose not to in many cases. Especially with work involving river tunnels, we've become much more reroute-happy over the years, and generally do not leverage crossovers to the extent they could be. 

It’s both amazing and unbelievable what the CTA can do that NYCT/MTA can’t - or more accurately - flat out refuse to do. Especially when it comes to maintenance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

It’s both amazing and unbelievable what the CTA can do that NYCT/MTA can’t - or more accurately - flat out refuse to do. Especially when it comes to maintenance.

If I remember right, there was a time CTA was like MTA, but after the RTA was formed and declined to rubber stamp on its financial oversight duties, CTA, and PACE and METRA, turned everything around and made sure to live up to their public service mandates.

Maybe (MTA)’s flaw was assuming day-to-day control instead of just scrutinizing, approving and auditing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so. After all, it was under NYCTA auspices that the QBL-60th St (1955) and Chyrstie St (1967) opened and they rebuilt DeKalb Junction, even though those connections continued the practice of reverse-branching favored by their predecessors, the Board of Transportation. But we also lost the 3rd Avenue El below 149th St, which could have functioned as a relief line for the always-overtaxed Lexington Avenue Subway until we got a full Second Avenue Subway. And the NYCTA declined to put the entire former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch under subway operation; only the portion south of Liberty Avenue. For me, it’s hard to say whether or not the 1953-68 NYCTA was all that much better than the current MTA-controlled NYCT is. On paper, it sounded better to have one agency in charge of all public transit services within NYC plus the commuter rail services to the NYS suburbs (and - formerly - the buses in Nassau Co.). But as far as the execution of that idea...well, we see how that plays out every day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 3:30 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe so. After all, it was under NYCTA auspices that the QBL-60th St (1955) and Chyrstie St (1967) opened and they rebuilt DeKalb Junction, even though those connections continued the practice of reverse-branching favored by their predecessors, the Board of Transportation. But we also lost the 3rd Avenue El below 149th St, which could have functioned as a relief line for the always-overtaxed Lexington Avenue Subway until we got a full Second Avenue Subway. And the NYCTA declined to put the entire former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch under subway operation; only the portion south of Liberty Avenue. For me, it’s hard to say whether or not the 1953-68 NYCTA was all that much better than the current MTA-controlled NYCT is. On paper, it sounded better to have one agency in charge of all public transit services within NYC plus the commuter rail services to the NYS suburbs (and - formerly - the buses in Nassau Co.). But as far as the execution of that idea...well, we see how that plays out every day.

It is worth noting the context that this happened in.

BOT/NYCT/MTA, until the '80s, were stuck between a rock and a hard place. They had a bunch of options

  • Raise the fare (and risk the wrath of your boss)
  • Slash services (and risk the wrath of your boss)
  • Convince your boss to raise taxes
  • Defer maintenance (and only f**k over future bosses and workers).

NYC was stable/losing population rapidly. The budget and the ridership was falling as well. They had no way to see into the future and see that this would change. So they tried amputating parts to save the body.

As far as what the MTA's role is, organizationally it has never been more than a glorified cash register, and it should probably have a role more reflective than that. OMNY, if it comes to the railroads, will probably the first major cross-agency project deserving of that title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they used all of those options. They all occurred. I realize NYC began to lose population around that time, but the Lex has always been a crowded subway line, even when the city went through its almost 40-year downward spiral. Because there still were active expansion plans for subways on 2nd Ave, Utica Ave and extending the Nostrand Ave subway, in addition to the Chrystie and QBL-60th connections and the rebuilt DeKalb Junction. The City even floated bonds in 1951 (pre-NYCTA, though they were the ones ultimately put in charge of spending the money) to build the new subways and even promised a 1958 opening for the SAS. The 3rd Ave el below 149th St came down for other reasons than the subway bleeding ridership. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 6:30 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe so. After all, it was under NYCTA auspices that the QBL-60th St (1955) and Chyrstie St (1967) opened and they rebuilt DeKalb Junction, even though those connections continued the practice of reverse-branching favored by their predecessors, the Board of Transportation. But we also lost the 3rd Avenue El below 149th St, which could have functioned as a relief line for the always-overtaxed Lexington Avenue Subway until we got a full Second Avenue Subway. And the NYCTA declined to put the entire former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch under subway operation; only the portion south of Liberty Avenue. For me, it’s hard to say whether or not the 1953-68 NYCTA was all that much better than the current MTA-controlled NYCT is. On paper, it sounded better to have one agency in charge of all public transit services within NYC plus the commuter rail services to the NYS suburbs (and - formerly - the buses in Nassau Co.). But as far as the execution of that idea...well, we see how that plays out every day.

You didn't mention that Chrystie Street and DeKalb Avenue were built for the capacity increases that the 1948 iteration of SAS would have created.

But the monies (1951 Bond Issue) for said SAS was instead used to modernize the system. Which wasn't exactly a bad thing. 

Except when it came to requesting another vote on bonds for Second Avenue later on, which the public voted against due to not forgetting what happened the previous time.

These are factors I've noticed get glossed over a lot.

On 12/1/2019 at 11:25 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And they used all of those options. They all occurred. I realize NYC began to lose population around that time, but the Lex has always been a crowded subway line, even when the city went through its almost 40-year downward spiral. Because there still were active expansion plans for subways on 2nd Ave, Utica Ave and extending the Nostrand Ave subway, in addition to the Chrystie and QBL-60th connections and the rebuilt DeKalb Junction. The City even floated bonds in 1951 (pre-NYCTA, though they were the ones ultimately put in charge of spending the money) to build the new subways and even promised a 1958 opening for the SAS. The 3rd Ave el below 149th St came down for other reasons than the subway bleeding ridership. 

Exhibit A. Even after finally going through the bond issue situation, you still neglected to mention WHY they weren't used for SAS.

And this is why I highly recommend reading 722 Miles and The Routes Not Taken. In that order.

They filled in many blanks that also inform all of my ideas for what should be done now. Because we've already made many of the same mistakes being made today.

There are things that occur outside of transit that do, in fact, affect transit as well. World events, financial crisis, changes in political climate, etcetera.

NYCTA isn't all at fault here and, in fact, many of their issues predated them. Much like many of the MTAs issues predate them as well.

And much like the TA, the MTA came into existence during a financial crisis. Only this time, it got worse.

These are factors that must be considered when asking why.

Lastly. The SECOND Avenue El is the one that should have been kept because it was the strongest (and youngest) of the four. In fact, the TA did want to keep one of the east side elevated lines, but it was Manhattan business owners that forced the issue while residents from Manhattan, The Bronx, and Queens wanted to wait for the new subway.

Things always have a reason. Question is, how many actually care enough to get all the facts? If more people did, who knows? We could be in a far better situation today.

Edited by LTA1992
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 10:13 AM, LTA1992 said:

You didn't mention that Chrystie Street and DeKalb Avenue were built for the capacity increases that the 1948 iteration of SAS would have created.

But the monies (1951 Bond Issue) for said SAS was instead used to modernize the system. Which wasn't exactly a bad thing. 

Except when it came to requesting another vote on bonds for Second Avenue later on, which the public voted against due to not forgetting what happened the previous time.

These are factors I've noticed get glossed over a lot.

Exhibit A. Even after finally going through the bond issue situation, you still neglected to mention WHY they weren't used for SAS.

And this is why I highly recommend reading 722 Miles and The Routes Not Taken. In that order.

They filled in many blanks that also inform all of my ideas for what should be done now. Because we've already made many of the same mistakes being made today.

There are things that occur outside of transit that do, in fact, affect transit as well. World events, financial crisis, changes in political climate, etcetera.

NYCTA isn't all at fault here and, in fact, many of their issues predated them. Much like many of the MTAs issues predate them as well.

And much like the TA, the MTA came into existence during a financial crisis. Only this time, it got worse.

These are factors that must be considered when asking why.

Lastly. The SECOND Avenue El is the one that should have been kept because it was the strongest (and youngest) of the four. In fact, the TA did want to keep one of the east side elevated lines, but it was Manhattan business owners that forced the issue while residents from Manhattan, The Bronx, and Queens wanted to wait for the new subway.

Things always have a reason. Question is, how many actually care enough to get all the facts? If more people did, who knows? We could be in a far better situation today.

I'll gladly read them both one of these days. With two small children and a long commute, I don't get a lot of "me time." lol

I fully agree the Second Avenue El is the one that should have been kept, especially because it had direct connections to both The Bronx and Queens, which certainly would have come in handy in the coming years after its demolition right up to today.

My point in mentioning the old NYCTA wasn't to completely put them down, but to point out that there were things they did and didn't do to improve the system and to point out how the MTA seem to be bedeviled by issues that other transit agencies, CTA for example, seem to have a much easier time getting done. I have no doubt there are outside factors that affect how MTA operates. But if other agencies in regions with financial and political issues (such as Chicago) are able to accomplish things like improve the signals and tracks and make their stations ADA-compliant with a smaller budget, MTA has no excuse. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

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.