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 minute ago, Jemorie said:

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.

Yup. The MTA abides by their stupid loading guidelines.

Their response is "Oh. Trains aren't crowded, then let's cut service within "acceptable limits.""

It should be: Oh. Fewer people are riding the train. Why is that? What could be done so more people could ride the train?

Share this post


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

In terms of the crewing.

Well they could be a regular crew during the Night but the end the trip with a Lay Up!.. That one train probably been on the road all night and its getting put into the yard to be serviced. A lot of Trains rotate!.  Like one of my Trips, i report  to Mosholu Tower, But Instead of going to Mosh Yard , I go to Concourse Yard to get My train, Then i go Straight into Service from the Yard to Kingsbridge. But Ill end my day at Woodlawn! all schedules are different

Edited by I Run Trains

Share this post


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

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?

There's no real confusion, and most get off them at 161 and 167. Some stay on to Burnside and if there's a crazy gap for the next train to Woodlawn, the smart riders head downstairs for the Bx32 (most are going to Fordham and Kingsbridge anyway.)

6 minutes 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.

Doesn't help anyone going to the Upper East Side or downtown (helps with Midtown tho, especially 34th Street.) The (B) and (D) reverse peak is better by far, but all the schools are by Jerome which is why the (4) gets slammed but not the (B) and (D).

 

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

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.

The (B) gets slammed in the peak direction. The (4) serves riders better south of Burnside, but the (B) and (D) combined serves riders better north of Tremont, but only if you have the flexibility to take either line on both ends of your journey.

Holy shit, there are so many other posts to reply to since I started typing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The (B) gets slammed in the peak direction. The (4) serves riders better south of Burnside, but the (B) and (D) combined serves riders better north of Tremont, but only if you have the flexibility to take either line on both ends of your journey.

Holy shit, there are so many other posts to reply to since I started typing.

Without a doubt. Hence we are fighting for increase in service.

It's mainly because it depends on how interested a member is in a particular topic, including me. Agreements as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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!

Man those AM jobs that drop out at Burnside are the ish, those are usually the heavy hitter penalty jobs and the WAA is beautiful lol. 

 

7 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

In terms of the crewing.

Am crews atleast when I worked one of those jobs start up at Woodlawn make a trip down to Utica and on our way back we drop out at Burnside. Midnight crew go from WDL-NLTS and on their last half (2nd trip) from Utica they drop out at Burnside. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jchambers2120 said:

Man those AM jobs that drop out at Burnside are the ish, those are usually the heavy hitter penalty jobs and the WAA is beautiful lol. 

 

Am crews atleast when I worked one of those jobs start up at Woodlawn make a trip down to Utica and on our way back we drop out at Burnside. Midnight crew go from WDL-NLTS and on their last half (2nd trip) from Utica they drop out at Burnside. 

Yeah, But The pAssengers will never understand it! LoL

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

- The issues at Union Square are equally bad in both directions. S/b it's gap fillers causing long dwells as you've identified; n/b it's terrible passenger flow. 

- The BG terminal is bad in both directions as well -- s/b you get hit with fumigation delays, n/b with the merge. 

- 3 track from Franklin to Borough Hall is a hornets nest of 1 shot GTs. You note the variability problem, but I think that stretch is worth highlighting independently

- 125 St is chaos -- long dwells, 10mph 1 shot enforced leaving speed nb. It's not constraining given how much of a dumpster fire the core section of Lex is, but it certainly contributes to lengthened peak-hour runtimes. 

35 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!

I've noticed that frequently, a (5) will get held for a (2) or (3) crossing in front, which in turn plugs a (4) coming downhill into Franklin. No direct crossing interaction, but the cascading effect certainly hurts (4)s.

On the question of <4> service more generally, I tend to say no. Assuming the proposal are express trips from 149 to Burnside, you first run into the issue of merge delays. Skipping 5 stops will save you 2.5-3.5 minutes, or almost a full (4) headway...which means you arrive at Burnside at about the same time as your leader. Then what? Somebody is getting a merge delay, or you extend the express segment of the <4> even further north, reducing its potential catchment and thus the case for express service, etc.

As I see others have noted, there's equally an issue of yard access. M track on Jerome gets a *lot* of use in this capacity. Again, assuming this is just an express as far as Burnside, you'd avoid put ins in the AM around BPB, but the first Burnside drop out arrives at Burnside before 9 AM! You're either going to have to move it to the local (running the risk of fumigation delays), keep the set in service (what I would do), or end express service quite early. Tractable, but again, something to think about. 

There's finally a load balance argument. <4> would undoubtedly attract riders from the (B)(D) which we...really don't want to be doing, given Lex loads. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The (B) gets slammed in the peak direction. The (4) serves riders better south of Burnside, but the (B) and (D) combined serves riders better north of Tremont, but only if you have the flexibility to take either line on both ends of your journey.

The (B) is so bad during rushes that a significant number of people ride to Tremont or Fordham and then cross over to the downtown for access to local stops. That's...embarrassing.

On the point of loading guidelines more broadly, they're an objectively terrible way of structuring service. In a networked system, the interactions between lines make things like transfer times and turnover and network load balance equally salient variables even to cost considerations (not that we should be structuring service around costs alone, but to speak the language of the agency...) as is crowding. Routes that have high turnover -- like the (B) -- should get more service as a reduction in their headway shortens transfers of more high-density trip types, making them more attractive and increasing revenue proportionally more, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

- The issues at Union Square are equally bad in both directions. S/b it's gap fillers causing long dwells as you've identified; n/b it's terrible passenger flow. 

- The BG terminal is bad in both directions as well -- s/b you get hit with fumigation delays, n/b with the merge. 

- 3 track from Franklin to Borough Hall is a hornets nest of 1 shot GTs. You note the variability problem, but I think that stretch is worth highlighting independently

- 125 St is chaos -- long dwells, 10mph 1 shot enforced leaving speed nb. It's not constraining given how much of a dumpster fire the core section of Lex is, but it certainly contributes to lengthened peak-hour runtimes. 

I've noticed that frequently, a (5) will get held for a (2) or (3) crossing in front, which in turn plugs a (4) coming downhill into Franklin. No direct crossing interaction, but the cascading effect certainly hurts (4)s.

On the question of <4> service more generally, I tend to say no. Assuming the proposal are express trips from 149 to Burnside, you first run into the issue of merge delays. Skipping 5 stops will save you 2.5-3.5 minutes, or almost a full (4) headway...which means you arrive at Burnside at about the same time as your leader. Then what? Somebody is getting a merge delay, or you extend the express segment of the <4> even further north, reducing its potential catchment and thus the case for express service, etc.

As I see others have noted, there's equally an issue of yard access. M track on Jerome gets a *lot* of use in this capacity. Again, assuming this is just an express as far as Burnside, you'd avoid put ins in the AM around BPB, but the first Burnside drop out arrives at Burnside before 9 AM! You're either going to have to move it to the local (running the risk of fumigation delays), keep the set in service (what I would do), or end express service quite early. Tractable, but again, something to think about. 

There's finally a load balance argument. <4> would undoubtedly attract riders from the (B)(D) which we...really don't want to be doing, given Lex loads. 

I knew I was forgetting something (3 track). @Ben Kabak can attribute to that.

It would be great to get (maybe crowdsource) TPH figures for Non-revenue moves.

13 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The (B) is so bad during rushes that a significant number of people ride to Tremont or Fordham and then cross over to the downtown for access to local stops. That's...embarrassing.

On the point of loading guidelines more broadly, they're an objectively terrible way of structuring service. In a networked system, the interactions between lines make things like transfer times and turnover and network load balance equally salient variables even to cost considerations (not that we should be structuring service around costs alone, but to speak the language of the agency...) as is crowding. Routes that have high turnover -- like the (B) -- should get more service as a reduction in their headway shortens transfers of more high-density trip types, making them more attractive and increasing revenue proportionally more, etc. 

The same goes for buses! The last time the agency actually did that for the subways and buses— with LTD stop service and increased express service as the Fare Deal — it worked! What a surprise.

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RR503 said:

- The issues at Union Square are equally bad in both directions. S/b it's gap fillers causing long dwells as you've identified; n/b it's terrible passenger flow. 

- The BG terminal is bad in both directions as well -- s/b you get hit with fumigation delays, n/b with the merge. 

- 3 track from Franklin to Borough Hall is a hornets nest of 1 shot GTs. You note the variability problem, but I think that stretch is worth highlighting independently

- 125 St is chaos -- long dwells, 10mph 1 shot enforced leaving speed nb. It's not constraining given how much of a dumpster fire the core section of Lex is, but it certainly contributes to lengthened peak-hour runtimes. 

I've noticed that frequently, a (5) will get held for a (2) or (3) crossing in front, which in turn plugs a (4) coming downhill into Franklin. No direct crossing interaction, but the cascading effect certainly hurts (4)s.

On the question of <4> service more generally, I tend to say no. Assuming the proposal are express trips from 149 to Burnside, you first run into the issue of merge delays. Skipping 5 stops will save you 2.5-3.5 minutes, or almost a full (4) headway...which means you arrive at Burnside at about the same time as your leader. Then what? Somebody is getting a merge delay, or you extend the express segment of the <4> even further north, reducing its potential catchment and thus the case for express service, etc.

As I see others have noted, there's equally an issue of yard access. M track on Jerome gets a *lot* of use in this capacity. Again, assuming this is just an express as far as Burnside, you'd avoid put ins in the AM around BPB, but the first Burnside drop out arrives at Burnside before 9 AM! You're either going to have to move it to the local (running the risk of fumigation delays), keep the set in service (what I would do), or end express service quite early. Tractable, but again, something to think about. 

There's finally a load balance argument. <4> would undoubtedly attract riders from the (B)(D) which we...really don't want to be doing, given Lex loads. 

There have Ben times when i was working the 5, Ill leave Franklin only to get held at the junction so a bum as (3) that entered the station after i left can cross ahead of me! smh!

  • Like 1
  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RR503 said:

- The issues at Union Square are equally bad in both directions. S/b it's gap fillers causing long dwells as you've identified; n/b it's terrible passenger flow. 

- The BG terminal is bad in both directions as well -- s/b you get hit with fumigation delays, n/b with the merge. 

- 3 track from Franklin to Borough Hall is a hornets nest of 1 shot GTs. You note the variability problem, but I think that stretch is worth highlighting independently

- 125 St is chaos -- long dwells, 10mph 1 shot enforced leaving speed nb. It's not constraining given how much of a dumpster fire the core section of Lex is, but it certainly contributes to lengthened peak-hour runtimes. 

Uptown heading into GCT is also awful.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The (B) is so bad during rushes that a significant number of people ride to Tremont or Fordham and then cross over to the downtown for access to local stops. That's...embarrassing.

On the point of loading guidelines more broadly, they're an objectively terrible way of structuring service. In a networked system, the interactions between lines make things like transfer times and turnover and network load balance equally salient variables even to cost considerations (not that we should be structuring service around costs alone, but to speak the language of the agency...) as is crowding. Routes that have high turnover -- like the (B) -- should get more service as a reduction in their headway shortens transfers of more high-density trip types, making them more attractive and increasing revenue proportionally more, etc. 

While the (B) won't help pull some loads off the (4) all the way, it will certainly make it alot more attractive to Grand Concourse local stops, especially for Yankee Stadium. I feel like the (B) to Bedford Park in the PM ends far too early, as during baseball season, trains are slammed to the core. Yet the (MTA)'s only solution is to have that (D) Express cross over to local for 161 (after bypassing 155 on the express) before crossing back to express. Horrible.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

There have Ben times when i was working the 5, Ill leave Franklin only to get held at the junction so a bum as (3) that entered the station after i left can cross ahead of me! smh!

Classic. That area is scheduled like garbage too -- they fully have (3)s and (5)s going through within 30s of each other.

2 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

While the (B) won't help pull some loads off the (4) all the way, it will certainly make it alot more attractive to Grand Concourse local stops, especially for Yankee Stadium. I feel like the (B) to Bedford Park in the PM ends far too early, as during baseball season, trains are slammed to the core. Yet the (MTA)'s only solution is to have that (D) Express cross over to local for 161 (after bypassing 155 on the express) before crossing back to express. Horrible.

I think the (B) could help a lot -- it has cross platform transfers with the (D) and (A) into Midtown, after all. Just a question of getting everybody's frequencies to a level at which CPW is attractive. 

Share this post


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

While the (B) won't help pull some loads off the (4) all the way, it will certainly make it alot more attractive to Grand Concourse local stops, especially for Yankee Stadium. I feel like the (B) to Bedford Park in the PM ends far too early, as during baseball season, trains are slammed to the core. Yet the (MTA)'s only solution is to have that (D) Express cross over to local for 161 (after bypassing 155 on the express) before crossing back to express. Horrible.

And as of last month they ended (B) service even earlier instead of increasing productivity during GOs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RR503 said:

Classic. That area is scheduled like garbage too -- they fully have (3)s and (5)s going through within 30s of each other.

I think the (B) could help a lot -- it has cross platform transfers with the (D) and (A) into Midtown, after all. Just a question of getting everybody's frequencies to a level at which CPW is attractive. 

The question is, do we have enough equipment to run the (B) and (D) at reasonable frequencies? Off-peak. Yes. Peak. I don't think so.

Share this post


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

The question is, do we have enough equipment to run the (B) and (D) at reasonable frequencies? Off-peak. Yes. Peak. I don't think so.

Eh. If we kept some 32s/cut out some of the ridiculous runtime adds implemented in peak hour schedules, we may have. Foreign systems also have much lower spare factors than do we largely because their car maintainers work overnight rather than during the peak, a practice whose adoption could free up a significant portion of the fleet for service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

There have Ben times when i was working the 5, Ill leave Franklin only to get held at the junction so a bum as (3) that entered the station after i left can cross ahead of me! smh!

That's another form of poor dispatching right there. Exactly what I was telling @Lawrence St in the other thread about DeKalb Junction... Reverse is true when my (3) pulled out first, and that trashbag (5) second, the latter goes ahead first...

@Union Tpke, the R211 order should fix the subway's overall fleet expansion, as most of the R42s are now out of service permanently and the R32s' age requiring a higher spare factor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RR503 What are your thoughts on constructing a station at 103/CPW on the (2)(3)?

 

Just now, RR503 said:

Eh. If we kept some 32s/cut out some of the ridiculous runtime adds implemented in peak hour schedules, we may have. Foreign systems also have much lower spare factors than do we largely because their car maintainers work overnight rather than during the peak, a practice whose adoption could free up a significant portion of the fleet for service.

I agree. What do you think the solution with the schedules? Actually changing schedules to reflect reality would require adjusting times throughout the line, requiring changes to essentially every other line since they are so fragile. 

Have car maintainers ever worked overnight in NYC?

Share this post


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

That's another form of poor dispatching right there. Exactly what I was telling @Lawrence St in the other thread about DeKalb Junction... Reverse is true when my (3) pulled out first, and that trashbag (5) second, the latter goes ahead first...

@Union Tpke, the R211 order should fix the subway's overall fleet expansion, as most of the R42s are now out of service permanently and the R32s' age requiring a higher spare factor.

Well aware of the second issue. Some of those expansion cars will go to the (L) for increased service, some will go to the (C) for 10-car trains, some for longer (G)  trains, and hopefully some to the (W) for an extension into Brooklyn. They should keep all 50 R42s and 222 R32s until the R211 order is complete. If anything transfer the R32s to the (H) and more productively use the R46s. (I know, OPTO, it was a joke)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2019 at 5:16 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

 I don’t know about all of that, but I have tried it from Mosholu Parkway and it is brutal. It takes forever. I don’t consider it a real option, especially compared to the (1). For those of us in Riverdale, we don’t have a real East Side subway. The Bx1 takes a while and the (4) is very slow.  By comparison, I’d rather put up with the numerous transfers necessary from it to reach the East Side or just take an Uber to Metro-North or the shuttle bus, which is much faster.

A crosstown along 125th Street would help with that. Too bad it won't ever happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@RR503 What are your thoughts on constructing a station at 103/CPW on the (2)(3)?

Would be nice for connectivity, I guess, but would slam the (2)(3) even moreso than today. Dunno if it should be pursued. 

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

I agree. What do you think the solution with the schedules? Actually changing schedules to reflect reality would require adjusting times throughout the line, requiring changes to essentially every other line since they are so fragile. 

I think that's exactly what should be done, but only after runtimes are stable (ie no more SPEED projects in the pipeline). I also think that the scheduled runtimes should be somewhat more aggressive than they are today so that the incentive to run a tight ship is maximized. 

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Have car maintainers ever worked overnight in NYC?

Unsure. I think some definitely do, it's just that a lot of mx activity happens during the peak. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RR503 said:

Would be nice for connectivity, I guess, but would slam the (2)(3) even moreso than today. Dunno if it should be pursued. 

I think that's exactly what should be done, but only after runtimes are stable (ie no more SPEED projects in the pipeline). I also think that the scheduled runtimes should be somewhat more aggressive than they are today so that the incentive to run a tight ship is maximized. 

Unsure. I think some definitely do, it's just that a lot of mx activity happens during the peak. 

I know. Just an idea if we have infinite money to spend. This would be after we are operating 36 TPH on the deinterlined (2) / (3) .

You can't be too aggressive due to merge conflicts. How far would you go?

Share this post


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

@RR503

 

Sorry. You'd either have n/b (3) trains skip 135, or you'd rebuild 135 to a 3 track/2 platform station with (3)s in the middle, or you'd just all out grade separate the area potentially using the middle track as someone else suggested. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 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.

The funny thing is that skip-stop on the (6) was considered in 1988. I haven't seen anything about it other than a mention in an article about skip-stop service.

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.