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.
vioreen

4 line change in Bronx

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Could you explain this in more detail? Would trains skip 135th?

Of all the rebuild scenarios I could imagine, the least disruptive one would probably involve building a parallel trackway for the northbound (3) that dips underneath both of the (2) trackways. The unfortunate result is that it would pretty much necessitate the closure of 145 Street northbound since the trackway has to ramp back up within the footprint of the current 145 Street station. During construction, the (3) would be disrupted—which is better than having the (2) (which serves more stations/passengers) disrupted.

The other option is to sink the southbound (2) trackway underneath the mainline and have it connect to the southbound (3) track from the west after ramping up to 135 Street. This is the more disruptive option as it would cut off (2) service southbound for an extended period of time. I don’t know if it’s possible to build all the requisite structures first and then connect the tunnels to the new structure over a single weekend to minimize service outage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only logic question is why a <4> express in The Bronx. I’m reading a lot of good points, but with the bottlenecks at 149 and 125. Would it be best to leave the (4) alone in The Bronx in lieu to the connections that are currently available for intra-Bronx and Wash Heights. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, subway4832 said:

Its been established multiple times that the (4) Express peak express is a horrible idea. They did a pilot years ago and it failed, mainly because you're skipping high ridership stations. The (4) is already terrible as is, this is just adding fuel to the fire. 

Which (4) train stop isn't a high ridership one?  <_< Very few of them aren't, such as 138th Street. This is just an example of what happens when no investment in expansion to subway service in the outer boroughs have complicated issues that have been building for years.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 25, 2019 at 3:32 PM, NY1635 said:

Real talk, the Jerome line should just be destroyed and rebuilt again. I feel like the (4) and (D) up in the Bronx really needs help. The (4) just makes lots of stops and the (D) is so infrequent.

im baffled by this!!!!! :Lots of stops???? Really????

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to deal with issues with the (4), there are the following:

  • Slow speeds enter Woodlawn-track layout
  • 149th Street Jct.-you could end the (5) merge
  • Variations in operation between T/Os - how they take timers
  • Crowding at 59th
  • Dwells at Grand Central
  • Gap Fillers at Union Square
  • Slow speeds in Lower Manhattan-close stop spacing and timers
  • Merges at Bowling Green with short-turn (5)s
  • Nostrand Junction
  • Utica -fumigation-supposedly ended

@RR503 Any others that I am missing?

  • Thumbs Up 4

Share this post


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

If you want to deal with issues with the (4), there are the following:

  • Slow speeds enter Woodlawn-track layout
  • 149th Street Jct.-you could end the (5) merge
  • Variations in operation between T/Os - how they take timers
  • Crowding at 59th
  • Dwells at Grand Central
  • Gap Fillers at Union Square
  • Slow speeds in Lower Manhattan-close stop spacing and timers
  • Merges at Bowling Green with short-turn (5)s
  • Nostrand Junction
  • Utica -fumigation-supposedly ended

@RR503 Any others that I am missing?

One thing I would add are those annoying hold to times at 149th GC, and 161st Street. Sometimes it gums up service pretty bad with trains right behind each other at 161

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On December 25, 2019 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence St said:

It's not impossible, it just needs to be worked on. You can do a similar (6)<6> setup by adding a switch at Burnside Avenue.

Theres already  switches at burnside!!!!!! The (4) goes express everyday in the bronx........ you just gotta be lucky to catch that 1 thats going express! LoL...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If you want to deal with issues with the (4), there are the following:

  • Slow speeds enter Woodlawn-track layout
  • 149th Street Jct.-you could end the (5) merge
  • Variations in operation between T/Os - how they take timers
  • Crowding at 59th
  • Dwells at Grand Central
  • Gap Fillers at Union Square
  • Slow speeds in Lower Manhattan-close stop spacing and timers
  • Merges at Bowling Green with short-turn (5)s
  • Nostrand Junction
  • Utica -fumigation-supposedly ended

@RR503 Any others that I am missing?

I think you did a good job identifying all the issues here, speaking as a daily (4) rider. These are all the issues that the (MTA) should definitely be looking into. Let's hope for the best.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Theres already  switches at burnside!!!!!! The (4) goes express everyday in the bronx........ you just gotta be lucky to catch that 1 thats going express! LoL...

There are actually 14 short-turns at Burnside, and they all run express.

Share this post


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

If you want to deal with issues with the (4), there are the following:

  • Slow speeds enter Woodlawn-track layout
  • 149th Street Jct.-you could end the (5) merge
  • Variations in operation between T/Os - how they take timers
  • Crowding at 59th
  • Dwells at Grand Central
  • Gap Fillers at Union Square
  • Slow speeds in Lower Manhattan-close stop spacing and timers
  • Merges at Bowling Green with short-turn (5)s
  • Nostrand Junction
  • Utica -fumigation-supposedly ended

@RR503 Any others that I am missing?

Yeah!!!!! This is pretty much accurate. The Gap Fillers are really not a big issue thou........... Unless a T/O Decides he wanna wrap it up and CHOW!!!!!

Nostrand Junction is not a big Issue for the (4) either because it doesn't have to wait for anybody to get past... Normally the would stop the (3) and let a (5) go!.. that way the following (2) & (4) goes thru. But sometimes they even screw that up!

Share this post


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

There are actually 14 short-turns at Burnside, and they all run express.

Northbound or South Bound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, I Run Trains said:

Nostrand Junction is not a big Issue for the (4) either because it doesn't have to wait for anybody to get past... Normally the would stop the (3) and let a (5) go!.. that way the following (2) & (4) goes thru. But sometimes they even screw that up!

Yeah, it's not a big issue. It depends though. But if they let the (3) be held for the (5) to go through first, the (2) behind that (3) will be held in the tunnel before Franklin. Reverse is true if they held the (5) to let the (3) go first, holding up the (4) in the tunnel before Franklin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2019 at 3:34 PM, Lawrence St said:

It's not impossible, it just needs to be worked on. You can do a similar (6)<6> setup by adding a switch at Burnside Avenue.

1. The (4) needs all the trains it can get north of Burnside. (Reverse peak service during school entry and dismissal times is f**king horrendous and that’s *with* all the trains running north of Burnside. Ride a northbound (4) at 7:30am or a southbound (4) at 3pm on a weekday to see for yourself.)

2. The Lex is at capacity during rush hours. Any improvements to the Jerome line would require (5) trains to be diverted off WPR and/or Dyre.

3. The (6) / <6> arrangement works because combined service runs every 4 minutes or better all day, which makes it easier to split service without overburdening local stops. Lack of interlining helps the (6) as well.

So... possible? Yes. Probable? Ehhh, figure out how to get trains off of the (5) without negatively impacting service on the Dyre line and get back to me when you have a plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Yeah, it's not a big issue. It depends though. But if they let the (3) be held for the (5) to go through first, the (2) behind that (3) will be held in the tunnel before Franklin. Reverse is true if they held the (5) to let the (3) go first, holding up the (4) in the tunnel before Franklin.

Bottom Line TRAINS WITH GET HELDNO MATTER WHAT! THERES NO WAY AROUND IT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Northbound or South Bound?

Northbound.

http://boerumhillscott.com/transit/LineTrips.php

 

12 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Yeah!!!!! This is pretty much accurate. The Gap Fillers are really not a big issue thou........... Unless a T/O Decides he wanna wrap it up and CHOW!!!!!

Nostrand Junction is not a big Issue for the (4) either because it doesn't have to wait for anybody to get past... Normally the would stop the (3) and let a (5) go!.. that way the following (2) & (4) goes thru. But sometimes they even screw that up!

It is an issue in that it increases dwell times and slows trains down (the curves)

I know it isn't a major issue in terms of that for the (4), but the main issue is when delays cascade, resulting from the junction.

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


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

There are actually 14 short-turns at Burnside, and they all run express.

Those trains are useless tbh. The <6> express maintains usefulness because after Parkchester they continue to Pelham Bay. The rush hour (4) trips that run express end at Burnside and head straight to the yard, which benefits nothing except the TA’s bottom line and the train operator who doesn’t have to do 2 reverse moves to clock out.

The conductor has to wait for the next (4) to Woodlawn, ride as a passenger and clock out from there, so they dont benefit either.

Share this post


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

Those trains are useless tbh. The <6> express maintains usefulness because after Parkchester they continue to Pelham Bay. The rush hour (4) trips that run express end at Burnside and head straight to the yard, which benefits nothing except the TA’s bottom line and the train operator who doesn’t have to do 2 reverse moves to clock out.

The conductor has to wait for the next (4) to Woodlawn, ride as a passenger and clock out from there, so they dont benefit either.

I am well aware of the reason behind these expresses. Based on your experience, do riders heading to Burnside take advantage of them? Do riders get confused and hold up the train?

Share this post


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

Northbound.

 

It is an issue in that it increases dwell times and slows trains down (the curves)

I know it isn't a major issue in terms of that for the (4), but the main issue is when delays cascade, resulting from the junction.

Well The Thing with the Northbound trains, It those burnside stops are actually not short turns! 80% of those guys doing those runs are Midnight guys who are bringing the train back to the yard. Not a lot of those trains are going back south! same with trains that terminate at Beford Park

And yes.. those T/O create those Gap filler problems because the went past the mark, or the went out too fastened CHOW!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

1. The (4) needs all the trains it can get north of Burnside. (Reverse peak service during school entry and dismissal times is f**king horrendous and that’s *with* all the trains running north of Burnside. Ride a northbound (4) at 7:30am or a southbound (4) at 3pm on a weekday to see for yourself.)

2. The Lex is at capacity during rush hours. Any improvements to the Jerome line would require (5) trains to be diverted off WPR and/or Dyre.

3. The (6) / <6> arrangement works because combined service runs every 4 minutes or better all day, which makes it easier to split service without overburdening local stops. Lack of interlining helps the (6) as well.

So... possible? Yes. Probable? Ehhh, figure out how to get trains off of the (5) without negatively impacting service on the Dyre line and get back to me when you have a plan.

Exactly. The (6)<6> is an isolated line. The (4) isn't, because it interacts with the (5) for most of its run (between the 138th Street-Grand Concourse interlocking and the Nostrand Avenue Junction interlocking), so capacity is limited on the (4) to 15 tph tops. Also, I especially agree with the reverse peak heavy crowding along Jerome Avenue. I have a close Spanish friend who lives inbetween the (4) and (B)(D) in the Bronx and alternates between riding both Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse lines. That's how I know about the heavy crowding in the reverse peak direction along Jerome Avenue.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, I Run Trains said:

Well The Thing with the Northbound trains, It those burnside stops are actually not short turns! 80% of those guys doing those runs are Midnight guys who are bringing the train back to the yard. Not a lot of those trains are going back south! same with trains that terminate at Beford Park

And yes.. those T/O create those Gap filler problems because the went past the mark, or the went out too fastened CHOW!

Thanks for letting me know about those. What was done before the trains to Burnside started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Exactly. The (6)<6> is an isolated line. The (4) isn't, because it interacts with the (5) for most of its run (between the 138th Street-Grand Concourse interlocking and the Nostrand Avenue Junction interlocking), so capacity is limited on the (4) to 15 tph tops. Also, I especially agree with the reverse peak heavy crowding along Jerome Avenue. I have a close Spanish friend who lives inbetween the (4) and (B)(D) in the Bronx and alternates between riding both Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse lines. That's how I know about the heavy crowding in the reverse peak direction along Jerome Avenue. Good looks though.

The solution to crowding on the (4) is increasing off-peak and peak frequency on the (B)(D). As @RR503 has stated, travel times on the (D) to Midtown are competitive with that of the (4). That should help a bit.

Share this post


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

Thanks for letting me know about those. What was done before the trains to Burnside started?

i don't understand exactly what you are asking me.. what do you mean by what was don't before trains to burnside started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, I Run Trains said:

i don't understand exactly what you are asking me.. what do you mean by what was don't before trains to burnside started?

In terms of the crewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

The solution to crowding on the (4) is increasing off-peak and peak frequency on the (B)(D). As @RR503 has stated, travel times on the (D) to Midtown are competitive with that of the (4). That should help a bit.

Peak (B) frequency (out of the Bronx in the AM and back into the Bronx in the PM) is sadly 6 tph. In addition, peak (D) frequency (out of the Bronx in the AM and back into the Bronx in the PM) has recently been slightly reduced from 10 tph to 7.5 tph. Let's hope we get the (MTA) to look into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.