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.

4 line change in Bronx


vioreen
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

No. And why? You realize the Lex Av express tracks feed onto the Jerome Av line and the Eastern Pkwy express tracks...and the Lex Av local tracks feed onto the Pelham line...your suggestion would just create a choke point with the crossovers at 125-Lex, as @paulrivera pointed out.

Because of these switches:

98-DAC5-C7-3-F67-417-D-B1-CD-42-EDB3-CA0

It could be done, and looks like the junction was designed with that service pattern in mind as an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Because of these switches:

98-DAC5-C7-3-F67-417-D-B1-CD-42-EDB3-CA0

It could be done, and looks like the junction was designed with that service pattern in mind as an option.

Okay, I see your point now. However, I have to disagree. The (6)<6> is an isolated line (with the exception of general orders/unplanned service changes in which the (4) and/or (5) are forced onto the local tracks with them in Manhattan); it’s best that it stays that way and they run every 2-3 minutes (4-6 minutes individually) at rush hour and every 4 minutes (8 minutes individually) middays. There’s no need for them to merge with the (4) at 125th St and the (5) taking their place as the Lex Av Local in Manhattan to/from Brooklyn Bridge. Any non-isolated line in the system already has a lot of merging delays. Besides, the (5) already merges with the (4) at 138th St-Grand Concourse. We don’t need to add another merge with the (4) by having the (6)<6> get in the way at 125th St...do you? Even then, about half of the (6)<6> would still need to be local in Manhattan since not all of those trains can fit into the capacity of Lex Av express with the 4 min peak headway on the (4).

It’s best to leave the (6)<6> alone and the (5) remaining on the same express tracks with the (4).

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Because of these switches:

98-DAC5-C7-3-F67-417-D-B1-CD-42-EDB3-CA0

It could be done, and looks like the junction was designed with that service pattern in mind as an option.

As an option, sure, but it would be....VERY unfun to operate. You’d basically be replicating Dekalb Avenue, just this time at higher throughputs next to a high dwell station on a corridor that is inarguably is the most essential to the function of the subway. A recipe for operational paralysis, in other words. I think it’s best to learn to manage dwell times at 125 (and across the corridor as a whole) better. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't they just make the (5) and (6) Local Lines and the (4) express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

Edited by NY1635
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

Can't they just make the (5) and (6) Local Lines and the (4) express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

If they did that, they'd piss off a lot of people, and not just because of the cuts that would be needed to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lex said:

If they did that, they'd piss off a lot of people, and not just because of the cuts that would be needed to make it work.

It's the city's own fault for marketing the subways over the buses.

Nassau had to hire a private company to sell their buses because the MTA are terrible salespeople.

The Circus was started Upstate near Van Cortland and PT Barnum is disappointed. 

Edited by NY1635
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

Can't they just make the (5) and (6) Local Lines and the (4) express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

You know, (6) riders from Pelham have the option of getting off at 125th if a (4) or (5) are across the platform.

Your suggestion that the (5) would be merging with/diverging from the (4) at 138th St-Grand Concourse and merging with/diverging from the (6) at 125th will just be dismissed by the (MTA) pretty quickly, and on top of that...cutting service slightly. You’re just spreading the problems to another line. The (6) and <6> combined run closer to 24-30 tph and the (6)<6> is an isolated line. Leave them alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Lex said:

If they did that, they'd piss off a lot of people, and not just because of the cuts that would be needed to make it work.

Lol what else can we say from this point and onward. Gotta love how this thread completely changed within a flick of a switch from “trying to speed up the (4) in the Bronx in addition to some adjustments to the nearby Grand Concourse Line to pull some riders off the Jerome Avenue Line” to “trying to switch the (5) and (6) roles in Manhattan or the (5) and (6) running local together in Manhattan leaving the (4) as the sole express”. Lol, I’m done entertaining this thread now for this real this time. Let’s just let it die on its own. Lol.

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

It's the city's own fault for marketing the subways over the buses.

Nassau had to hire a private company to sell their buses because the MTA are terrible salespeople.

The Circus was started Upstate near Van Cortland and PT Barnum is disappointed. 

On high density corridors like the Lex, words do not describe how better of a fit subways are than buses. Thank GOD we built them.

1 hour ago, NY1635 said:

Can't they just make the (5) and (6) Local Lines and the (4) express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

Interlining 125/Lex would be Dekalb but with more merge delays and more capacity loss all to save people 

*checks notes*

A cross platform transfer.

Please, dear god, no. This is like basic level operations analysis: merges along high ridership/throughput corridors should be minimized. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NY1635 said:

Can't they just make the (5) and (6) Local Lines and the (4) express. Most of the Lex Ave Ridership is coming from places between 125th and Lower Manhattan. There's also people from Brooklyn using it between Crown Heights and Barclay's Center to get into Manhattan. It's just Bronx-Westchester folks who want a fast ride into the city, but don't want to take the MNRR. 

This would be way worse than the current setup. You’d have the (5) merge with the (4)<4> at 138th, then have another merge between the (5) and the (6)<6> at 125th. That’s just a recipe for disaster if just one train dies anywhere in between 149th and 86th. 

And because you’d still (I assume) have the (4) and (5) merging south of 138th during AM rush, you can forget about having a <4> express in The Bronx with this setup. It really wouldn’t be feasible with the (5) and (6) merging at 125th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a full blown rush hour peak direction express service were to be tried on the (4) using relay operations similar to Parkchester.. it could look like this:

<4> Woodlawn Express: Woodlawn, Mosholu Pkwy, Bedford Pk Blvd, Kingsbridge Rd, Fordham Rd, 183rd St, Burnside Av, 149-GC, 125th.

(4) Woodlawn Local: Burnside Av, 176th St, Mt Eden Av, 170th St, 167th St, 161st St-Yankee Stadium, 149-GC, 125th.

 

Thoughts?

Edited by <6>PelhamExp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

If a full blown rush hour peak direction express service were to be tried on the (4) using relay operations similar to Parkchester.. it could look like this:

<4> Woodlawn Express: Woodlawn, Mosholu Pkwy, Bedford Pk Blvd, Kingsbridge Rd, Fordham Rd, 183rd St, Burnside Av, 149-GC, 125th.

(4) Woodlawn Local: Burnside Av, 176th St, Mt Eden Av, 170th St, 167th St, 161st St-Yankee Stadium, 149-GC, 125th.

 

Thoughts?

You can't do this without moving a switch at Burnside Av because local (4) trains terminating at Burnside would cause delays for <4>.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NY1635 said:

It's the city's own fault for marketing the subways over the buses.

Nassau had to hire a private company to sell their buses because the MTA are terrible salespeople.

The Circus was started Upstate near Van Cortland and PT Barnum is disappointed. 

What.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

If a full blown rush hour peak direction express service were to be tried on the (4) using relay operations similar to Parkchester.. it could look like this:

<4> Woodlawn Express: Woodlawn, Mosholu Pkwy, Bedford Pk Blvd, Kingsbridge Rd, Fordham Rd, 183rd St, Burnside Av, 149-GC, 125th.

(4) Woodlawn Local: Burnside Av, 176th St, Mt Eden Av, 170th St, 167th St, 161st St-Yankee Stadium, 149-GC, 125th.

 

Thoughts?

So everyone at Fordham gets screwed by SRO conditions so trains can run fairly empty faster to/from a cemetery?

Nah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

So everyone at Fordham gets screwed by SRO conditions so trains can run fairly empty faster to/from a cemetery?

Nah.

How? Woodlawn, Moshulu Parkway and Bedford Park are highly used stations along the (4) line. Fordham Road does not get affected by the (6) and <6> setup plan, but my ideal plan would be to have a similar <F> setup. Two trains per rush is all I'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Fordham Road does not get affected by the (6) and <6> setup plan

How would it when Fordham Road doesn’t even meet the (2)/(5), let alone (6)<6>?

Unless you mean “Hey, we’ll run the same amount of local trains on Jerome, and we’ll run express trains to” in which case we’re back to the original digression: “how would these trains fit on Lex with (5)(6)/<6>?” - which has been determined that they cannot unless a service cut happens.

Help me understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just re-read this whole thread and it amazes me that not one person sees the obvious solution ( except me ) while the rah- rah folks debate Concourse, Woodlawn, Dyre, Pelham. Meanwhile the people you're counting on to alleviate this mess somewhat have ignored your problems as if they don't exist. It always appeared to me that the mindset of the folks in charge was that Concourse ridership was west side vs Jerome meant east side. That may be where the trains were heading but it ignored the desires of the individual ridership.  As if there were no options and everything was an absolute. Remember that line that ran from the Bronx to City Hall or Chatham Square ? Cut back to 149th St-3rd Ave at the Hub ? Then the new edition of the same agency proposed eliminating a portion of the (4) line in the Bronx. Same agency that is doing a piecemeal replacement for a short segment of a line that should be 100% focused on the Bronx, IMO. Meanwhile that same master plan adds a somewhat useless turn westward in Manhattan while ignoring everything problematic that this thread has pointed out.  Maybe you Concourse/ Jerome folks are an afterthought or taken for granted ? Maybe the ire of the Bronx posters should be directed at the (MTA) and the politicians who control the agency.  BTW the running time from Woodlawn to 149th-GC used to be 18-20 minutes with the old equipment. I'll let jc or I run trains correct me 'cause I don't believe any of that Trip Planner BS. That's my rant on the subject. Agree or not. It's okay with me. Carry on.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deucey said:

So everyone at Fordham gets screwed by SRO conditions so trains can run fairly empty faster to/from a cemetery?

Nah.

Well, not exactly. The trains leaving from the cemetery would also be stopping at Fordham. But yes, they would be SRO (as they are now). 

On 12/25/2019 at 11:43 PM, Q23 via 108 said:

Can a Skip Stop (4) Train work? Just like the (J). In the Summer, I take the (4) from Fordham Road to 125 to catch the (6). Normally it takes about 20 minutes to get from Fordham to 125. You could make both trains stop at important stops (Kingsbridge, Fordham, 161) and let the other stops alternate between trains. The (MTA) could use the <4> or some other unused designation for the skip stop idea. But I'm just throwing this up in the air, I usually take the (D) to go to The Bronx anyway. But hey, its just an idea...

I went back to view the beginning of this topic and just found your post about doing skip stop instead of a <4> express. I had also suggested skip stop a bit later in the discussion, so I’m glad I’m not the only one suggesting it. I was going to suggest using (8) for the stops skipped by the (4)

On 12/26/2019 at 5:29 AM, Lex said:

As it is, the (4) is about as frequent as the (1) was when skip-stop service was discontinued.

Moreover, there's been quite a few people -- myself included -- who have talked about/thought of killing skip-stop entirely because of, among other things, the artificially high wait times that come with it. The closest to it I'd remotely push for is having peak (4) service skip 138th Street via the main tracks so additional (4) trains can run north of 149th Street (and to avoid having southbound trains do the nonsense currently done, which is performed at a snail's pace, to boot).

Yes, there has been plenty of past discussions about why the (9) went the way of the (K) and why we should kill off skip-stop service on the (J) line in favor of a (Z) express. For the (J) and (Z) I get it, because those two services are only 12 tph for one hour in the morning and again in the afternoon. So that does force a long wait at the skipped stops. But the (4) runs more frequently, so we’re talking less than 12-minute waits at whichever stations get skipped. We also get the flexibility of being able to have all trains being able to stop at heavy-hitter stops like Kingsbridge, Fordham and 161st, which a <4> express would not be able to, unless it starts running express at Burnside.

 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Just re-read this whole thread and it amazes me that not one person sees the obvious solution ( except me ) while the rah- rah folks debate Concourse, Woodlawn, Dyre, Pelham. Meanwhile the people you're counting on to alleviate this mess somewhat have ignored your problems as if they don't exist. It always appeared to me that the mindset of the folks in charge was that Concourse ridership was west side vs Jerome meant east side. That may be where the trains were heading but it ignored the desires of the individual ridership.  As if there were no options and everything was an absolute. Remember that line that ran from the Bronx to City Hall or Chatham Square ? Cut back to 149th St-3rd Ave at the Hub ? Then the new edition of the same agency proposed eliminating a portion of the (4) line in the Bronx. Same agency that is doing a piecemeal replacement for a short segment of a line that should be 100% focused on the Bronx, IMO. Meanwhile that same master plan adds a somewhat useless turn westward in Manhattan while ignoring everything problematic that this thread has pointed out.  Maybe you Concourse/ Jerome folks are an afterthought or taken for granted ? Maybe the ire of the Bronx posters should be directed at the (MTA) and the politicians who control the agency.  BTW the running time from Woodlawn to 149th-GC used to be 18-20 minutes with the old equipment. I'll let jc or I run trains correct me 'cause I don't believe any of that Trip Planner BS. That's my rant on the subject. Agree or not. It's okay with me. Carry on.

What is this “obvious solution” you speak of? To me, the obvious in the case of the (4) individually is just improving current service given the self-evident flaws of skip stop on a line with significant intra-corridor ridership, the operational issues with running an express via M track, and the fact that a few simple fixes in the 125-161 stretch could save Jerome riders significant amounts of time.

As for the travel demographics of Concourse/Jerome in general, the actual destinations of real commuters on the line are a lot more central in midtown than one would imagine given the (4) bias of corridor ridership. This should indicate two things to us armchair analysts: the (B)(D) do a disproportionately poor job of serving core-bound corridor riders, and that the greatest benefit to corridor riders who are traveling beyond the Bronx (ie the folks that this <4> would target) would likely come from service expansions on the IND, given its centrality to Midtown destinations and access to midtown crosstown service in the (E) at 7/53. Things like bumping service on the (B)(D) from 15 to 20tph, reviewing service patterns at the 59 St interlocking, and perhaps considering adds to the (A)(C) (which also peak at 15tph combined southbound) to increase network-level gains for Concourse/Jerome riders are all operationally neutral or positive interventions that would, ya know, serve real markets. And all of this could be furthered with station access interventions, whether that be reopening closed entrances or modifying bus service to help people move around the Concourse/Jerome corridor’s many hills. Pie in the sky? Perhaps. A set of investments that would see extremely high returns on a network scale if implemented? Absolutely. 

The runtime graphs I posted a page or two ago are collected from actual trains; that’s how long things take today. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

Not sure how it would be SRO in that scenario when it's the exact same service...

Maybe the poster is referring to less frequent service at that station because the tph would have to be cut in half to cover the Express and Local service, since it may be difficult to add service due to capacity on Lex.

If thats not what the poster is referring to, SRO conditions at Fordham already exist, so I am unsure what they mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

What is this “obvious solution” you speak of? To me, the obvious in the case of the (4) individually is just improving current service given the self-evident flaws of skip stop on a line with significant intra-corridor ridership, the operational issues with running an express via M track, and the fact that a few simple fixes in the 125-161 stretch could save Jerome riders significant amounts of time.

The obvious solution @Trainmaster5 is alluding to is the Second Avenue Subway and firing 30TPH north towards Third/Park/Webster/you get the idea.

At current construction costs this will probably happen in 2453.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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