Jump to content

4 line change in Bronx


vioreen

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

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.

Although RR503 is entirely correct in pointing out the problem with the IND part of the equation. Gotta remember that for many years there was a line east of the Concourse line that carried a share of that ridership that was pushed over to the IND after it shut down. I wonder if bringing back an 8th Avenue addition to the Concourse line would make a difference, too. As it stands the (B) and (D) mirror each other from Grand Street to Bedford Park Blvd so if something goes wrong on that stretch the (D) gets the best treatment while the (B) is an afterthought. The difference between myself and many other posters is that I rely on personal experience and what I was taught back then. I remember when my mentors came to a few of us hourly folks and said that the powers that be learned a new word,  throughput,  which would supposedly improve our lives in RTO. Before I retired they would tease me about how much my Transit life had improved. Remember that I started out with older SMEE equipment,  moved on to Redbirds,  R62A, and finally R142. New signal system,  ATS, what have you.  Running time increased from Dyre to Bowling Green on my old interval by 8 minutes . My rabbi and his associates created a job that they knew would keep me from getting in trouble with management. I have touched base this week with many of my instructors and colleagues who share some of my sentiments. One person reminded me of the day I announced my retirement plan to him and a few other superintendents while we were standing in front of the Transit building at 130 Livingston. A line supervisor, a school car superintendent,  a deputy and a young man brought over from the LIRR. I looked at the LIRR recruit and felt saddened.  I thought it looked bad that the NYCT had to go outside of the immediate agency to find someone who would buy into the program. RTO supervisors banished to the SIR  or transferred between divisions was not a good look,  at least to me and the supervision that I personally knew . Charts,  graphs, and position papers do have a place in RTO Planning but in my opinion knowledgeable people are worth more.  My opinion.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/28/2019 at 4:31 PM, 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.

You missed the whole point of this thread. The entire thread is practically nothing more than just trying to make the (4) run express along Jerome Avenue, with usual suspects like @Lawrence St and @Via Garibaldi 8 bitching and crying about the (4) taking way too long to get from Woodlawn to 125th and reverse..."Rah-rah" folks debating? Oh my, I'm so touched...last I checked, It's called constructive criticism, but whatever term suits you I guess...

The "obvious solution" you speak of is not going to happen till way into the future, which by then, some of us would already be in the grave...another thing to note is that, unless anything changes sooner or later, the (MTA) has no futuristic plans to extend SAS into the Bronx. Besides, the agency is shitting themselves with having SAS turn west along 125 St just to connect with the Lex via a free transfer, even though the (Q) already has a free transfer to the Lex at Union Sq, not to mention both Lex and SAS are literally a block or two from one another throughout Manhattan...on paper that is...and @RR503 is not the first one to speak out about the issues regarding the (B) and (D)@RR503, btw, the (A)(C) combined actually maintain 18 tph southbound in the AM peak (11 tph on the (A) and 7 tph on the (C)), not 15 tph. Some improvements still should be made, though.

Even if SAS were to be extended to/from the Bronx, the line as a whole would still be two-tracks with a handful of stops (yes I know, just not as much as the current local services along Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse line though). And yes, it will also take some crowding off the Jerome Av (4) for the South Bronx, East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and East Midtown. But it's not really gonna do what @Lawrence St has been endlessly aiming for...

Oh wait...

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

@RR503, btw, the (A)(C) combined actually maintain 18 tph southbound in the AM peak (11 tph on the (A) and 7 tph on the (C)), not 15 tph. Some improvements still should be made, though.

Scheduled throughput southbound at 59 St (where trains enter the CBD), see the 8-9AM time slot:

ZEwyTQw.png

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Although RR503 is entirely correct in pointing out the problem with the IND part of the equation. Gotta remember that for many years there was a line east of the Concourse line that carried a share of that ridership that was pushed over to the IND after it shut down. I wonder if bringing back an 8th Avenue addition to the Concourse line would make a difference, too. As it stands the (B) and (D) mirror each other from Grand Street to Bedford Park Blvd so if something goes wrong on that stretch the (D) gets the best treatment while the (B) is an afterthought. The difference between myself and many other posters is that I rely on personal experience and what I was taught back then. I remember when my mentors came to a few of us hourly folks and said that the powers that be learned a new word,  throughput,  which would supposedly improve our lives in RTO. Before I retired they would tease me about how much my Transit life had improved. Remember that I started out with older SMEE equipment,  moved on to Redbirds,  R62A, and finally R142. New signal system,  ATS, what have you.  Running time increased from Dyre to Bowling Green on my old interval by 8 minutes . My rabbi and his associates created a job that they knew would keep me from getting in trouble with management. I have touched base this week with many of my instructors and colleagues who share some of my sentiments. One person reminded me of the day I announced my retirement plan to him and a few other superintendents while we were standing in front of the Transit building at 130 Livingston. A line supervisor, a school car superintendent,  a deputy and a young man brought over from the LIRR. I looked at the LIRR recruit and felt saddened.  I thought it looked bad that the NYCT had to go outside of the immediate agency to find someone who would buy into the program. RTO supervisors banished to the SIR  or transferred between divisions was not a good look,  at least to me and the supervision that I personally knew . Charts,  graphs, and position papers do have a place in RTO Planning but in my opinion knowledgeable people are worth more.  My opinion.  Carry on. 

I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. Systems knowledge is good. Data and reports are also good, and are completely necessary to ensure that issues of perception are countervailed appropriately. What NYCT needs and currently lacks is a structure that has the critical thinking skills and system knowledge to quickly identify service issues, but also the analytical capabilities to place that issue in systemic context, avoiding the previously common problem where, euh, attentive supervisors just made changes to their home lines external to system process.

FWIW, I think it's worth complicating the "they did all these things and service got...worse" narrative. Most of the runtime increase you observe came to pass to combat some very real safety deficiencies in the signal system. Some of the finer points of that issue are certainly worth debating -- whether we should have spent the money to add signals to combat capacity losses, whether we should have spent more to properly mod interlocking areas, etc -- but I certainly don't think seeing that slowdown as an endogenous process is totally right. There are a TON of areas where NYCT could improve/has been regressing, but the causations behind those issues aren't just "we need to be a lot better at system management/managerial culture" (which we do, but you get my point). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jemorie said:

You missed the whole point of this thread. The entire thread is practically nothing more than just trying to make the (4) run express along Jerome Avenue, with usual suspects like @Lawrence St and @Via Garibaldi 8 bitching and crying about the (4) taking way too long to get from Woodlawn to 125th and reverse..."Rah-rah" folks debating? Oh my, I'm so touched...last I checked, It's called constructive criticism, but whatever term suits you I guess...

The "obvious solution" you speak of is not going to happen till way into the future, which by then, some of us would already be in the grave...another thing to note is that, unless anything changes sooner or later, the (MTA) has no futuristic plans to extend SAS into the Bronx. Besides, the agency is shitting themselves with having SAS turn west along 125 St just to connect with the Lex via a free transfer, even though the (Q) already has a free transfer to the Lex at Union Sq, not to mention both Lex and SAS are literally a block or two from one another throughout Manhattan...on paper that is...and @RR503 is not the first one to speak out about the issues regarding the (B) and (D)@RR503, btw, the (A)(C) combined actually maintain 18 tph southbound in the AM peak (11 tph on the (A) and 7 tph on the (C)), not 15 tph. Some improvements still should be made, though.

Even if SAS were to be extended to/from the Bronx, the line as a whole would still be two-tracks with a handful of stops (yes I know, just not as much as the current local services along Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse line though). And yes, it will also take some crowding off the Jerome Av (4) for the South Bronx, East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and East Midtown. But it's not really gonna do what @Lawrence St has been endlessly aiming for...

Oh wait...

You clearly have zero form etiquette which is why I don't even respond to you anymore, because all you do when we suggest something is complain and complain.

You clearly are not a daily (4) rider, we are. The Bronx needs express or skipstop service, particularly along the (1) and (4) because they are both high ridership routes and some type of pilot must be tried again. The <F> is a clear example of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

You clearly have zero form etiquette which is why I don't even respond to you anymore, because all you do when we suggest something is complain and complain.

You clearly are not a daily (4) rider, we are. The Bronx needs express or skipstop service, particularly along the (1) and (4) because they are both high ridership routes and some type of pilot must be tried again. The <F> is a clear example of that.

Yes, because there can't possibly be anything wrong with these (1) and (4) proposals under the existing (and future) circumstances, nor any stark differences when compared to the (F)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Lex said:

Yes, because there can't possibly be anything wrong with these (1) and (4) proposals under the existing (and future) circumstances, nor any stark differences when compared to the (F)...

Care to explain? The (1) is a different issue which I will explain when I have the time, but the (4) is relatively simple.

People say that (let's call this one <4> Plan A) when running express, stopping at Woodlawn-->Moshulu Pkwy-->Burnside Av-->149th St, skips to many high ridership stops. I understand that, but so does the <F> which is why I changed my idea to have only two trips per rush instead of the five I orginally proposed.

<4> Plan B is a (6)<6> setup, where express <4> trains run express between 149th St & Burnside Av and then local to Woodlawn, and (4) local trains terminate at Burnside Av. This plan requires moving a switch at Burnside Av, and slightly reduces the amount of trains north of Burnside and adds a little bit of a merging issue at 138th St.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

The Bronx needs express or skipstop service, particularly along the (1) and (4) because they are both high ridership routes and some type of pilot must be tried again.

But skip/stop only saved 3 minutes and increased wait times. How much would running (9) on the express between VCP and Dyckman, and then between 157 and 96 save - given the merge delays?

Not to mention that now all those Bx12 riders would have a delay because they’d have to switch trains at Dyckman.

(I’m not against it - I just would hope folks wouldn’t have to wait 5 minutes north of 96th St to save 3 minutes if they’re going to VCP.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

But skip/stop only saved 3 minutes and increased wait times. How much would running (9) on the express between VCP and Dyckman, and then between 157 and 96 save - given the merge delays?

Not to mention that now all those Bx12 riders would have a delay because they’d have to switch trains at Dyckman.

(I’m not against it - I just would hope folks wouldn’t have to wait 5 minutes north of 96th St to save 3 minutes if they’re going to VCP.)

Good point, let's say we have a (1) and a (9) leaving 242nd St within 4 minutes apart. (The (9) is express in this scenario.) The (1) leaves first at 8:00 AM and the (9) leaves at 8:04 AM. The (1) operates on 7-8 minute headways during the rush, so let's say theres another (1) train at 207th St. 

It takes about 8-9 minutes to go from 242nd St to Dyckman St via local, and about 3-4 minutes via Express. That (9) will pass the 8:00 AM (1) with no delay, and then merge back onto the SB local at Dyckman St with no delay. The (1) that was at 207th St is now at 181st St. Now the (9) runs local between Dyckman St & 137th St (because 137th St is a high ridership stop). That (1) that is in front of the (9) is most likely at 125th St or 116th St by this point. Then the (9) switches back to the express track down to 96th St, which should take about 5-6 minutes. That (9) should be able to merge back onto the local track with no delay, as long as the (1) is running on time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

You clearly have zero form etiquette which is why I don't even respond to you anymore, because all you do when we suggest something is complain and complain.

You clearly are not a daily (4) rider, we are. The Bronx needs express or skipstop service, particularly along the (1) and (4) because they are both high ridership routes and some type of pilot must be tried again. The <F> is a clear example of that.

I’m not a daily (4) rider all because I continuously disagree with your endless idiotic proposal to run it express in the Bronx? Lol, whatever. Complaining? Look who’s talking. I been riding the (4) for 23 years now. Thank you very much. And even if I didn’t, what’s your point? You’re gonna give me a reward? No, you’re not. You have no valid sources from any news media or transit advocates or even the people who live/work along the (4)’s route in the Bronx whatsoever to further prove that there’s a heavy demand for a Bronx (4) express anyway. Only thing you have is this thread and the other thread you created. And you talking about me not ridding the (4) daily and “complaining” and all that shit. You are clearly a foamer who just wants to see the (4) be a “true express” just because.

Like I always tell you, dream on. It’ll never happen. And I’m not the only one who is opposing to this Jerome Avenue express crap of yours. Even a train operator here disagreed with you. Have a wonderful New Years.

@RR503, sure thing.

 

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

People say that (let's call this one <4> Plan A) when running express, stopping at Woodlawn-->Moshulu Pkwy-->Burnside Av-->149th St, skips to many high ridership stops. I understand that, but so does the <F> which is why I changed my idea to have only two trips per rush instead of the five I orginally proposed.

With the exception of anything beginning/ending at Church Avenue, all trains stop between Kings Highway and Church Avenue. This allows <F> trains to build ridership to remotely justify its operation.

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

<4> Plan B is a (6)<6> setup, where express <4> trains run express between 149th St & Burnside Av and then local to Woodlawn, and (4) local trains terminate at Burnside Av. This plan requires moving a switch at Burnside Av, and slightly reduces the amount of trains north of Burnside and adds a little bit of a merging issue at 138th St.

Slightly, my ass. That would require half the trains in order to have a chance to work, and between the ridership patterns (including reverse commutes, which stand no chance at reaping any benefits in spite of Jerome being about as popular in both directions throughout the day, even while disregarding Yankee Stadium), the frequencies (unless you're willing to try to fight the White Plains Road and Dyre Avenue riders, good luck with getting fewer (5) trains just to run more than 15 (4) trains), and the merges that you just acknowledged, it would actually serve to worsen commutes. Express =/= better, after all.

In fact, the only thing I've ever really thought is that Jerome in particular simply needs more trains north of 149th Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

You clearly are not a daily (4) rider, we are. The Bronx needs express or skipstop service, particularly along the (1) and (4) because they are both high ridership routes and some type of pilot must be tried again. The <F> is a clear example of that.

But it has to be something different from what’s already been tried. For 16 years (well, 15 actually, if you don’t count the year after 9/11 that the (1) ran to New Lots Ave), we did have a skip-stop (1)(9) service from 242nd to 137th. Between the cutting back of the (9)’s service hours from all day Monday-Friday to just rush hours and making 191st an all-stop station, the service just didn’t accomplish what it was supposed to and was eventually discontinued. More recently (2009), we tried two <4> express pilot runs. Neither was very successful, probably because having five express trains skip Kingsbridge, Fordham and 161st made for much more crowded trains. I’ll explain more below.

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Care to explain? The (1) is a different issue which I will explain when I have the time, but the (4) is relatively simple.

People say that (let's call this one <4> Plan A) when running express, stopping at Woodlawn-->Moshulu Pkwy-->Burnside Av-->149th St, skips to many high ridership stops. I understand that, but so does the <F> which is why I changed my idea to have only two trips per rush instead of the five I orginally proposed.

<4> Plan B is a (6)<6> setup, where express <4> trains run express between 149th St & Burnside Av and then local to Woodlawn, and (4) local trains terminate at Burnside Av. This plan requires moving a switch at Burnside Av, and slightly reduces the amount of trains north of Burnside and adds a little bit of a merging issue at 138th St.

What MTA tried is similar to the <4> Plan A you described, except your version now calls for only two trips per rush, like the <F> (and who knows how long that’s going to last?). But at least in the <F>’s case, riders have the rest of the regular rush hour (F) trains, plus the (G) with a transfer to fall back on. (4) riders don’t have a second Jerome service to fall back on (please, nobody say “Extend the (3) to Woodlawn,” thank you!). But even with the (G) running alongside the (F), if MTA tried to expand the <F> into a full blown rush/weekday express, I would fully expect blowback from riders north of Church Ave. Two <4> express runs is probably the best you can do, without receiving similar blowback from (4) riders. 

Suppose they do try the <4> Plan B you proposed. Well okay, now you’ve got the express trains stopping at Bedford, Kingsbridge and Fordham. Then they start their express run after Burnside. They skip five stops, including 161st, which is The Bronx’s busiest station. How much time do think it will save skipping just those five stops between Burnside and 149th? Figure roughly 30-40 seconds per stop, assuming no one foolishly holds the doors open (which we all know will happen). With a split between local and express, there will be fewer trains per rush at every Jerome Line station except Burnside and 149th. Unless you start both (4) and <4> trains at Woodlawn and then have the <4> trains go express after Burnside, count on trains being slower and more crowded than now, because it will take that much longer to get people on the trains and get the doors closed. You also have to have (4) and <4> trains merge back in with each other at 149th, then with the (5) after 138th, so count on that eating into the express’ time saving. 
 

5 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Good point, let's say we have a (1) and a (9) leaving 242nd St within 4 minutes apart. (The (9) is express in this scenario.) The (1) leaves first at 8:00 AM and the (9) leaves at 8:04 AM. The (1) operates on 7-8 minute headways during the rush, so let's say theres another (1) train at 207th St. 

It takes about 8-9 minutes to go from 242nd St to Dyckman St via local, and about 3-4 minutes via Express. That (9) will pass the 8:00 AM (1) with no delay, and then merge back onto the SB local at Dyckman St with no delay. The (1) that was at 207th St is now at 181st St. Now the (9) runs local between Dyckman St & 137th St (because 137th St is a high ridership stop). That (1) that is in front of the (9) is most likely at 125th St or 116th St by this point. Then the (9) switches back to the express track down to 96th St, which should take about 5-6 minutes. That (9) should be able to merge back onto the local track with no delay, as long as the (1) is running on time.

I feel that having a (9) train run express, then merging back in with the (1) at Dyckman, then running express between 137th and 96th and merging back in again, isn’t going to save much time due to the merging before both Dyckman and 96th, like the scenario above where I described the (4) and <4> merging at 149th. 

5 hours ago, Deucey said:

But skip/stop only saved 3 minutes and increased wait times. How much would running (9) on the express between VCP and Dyckman, and then between 157 and 96 save - given the merge delays?

Not to mention that now all those Bx12 riders would have a delay because they’d have to switch trains at Dyckman.

(I’m not against it - I just would hope folks wouldn’t have to wait 5 minutes north of 96th St to save 3 minutes if they’re going to VCP.)

No, probably not. And that’s why we haven’t had a (1) express anywhere north of 96th St for decades (since the 60s, maybe the 70s at the latest).

Likewise, a (4)(8) skip-stop service probably won’t save very much time in The Bronx either over the current all-stop (4). It would certainly affect riders traveling intra-borough. But it wouldn’t require any merging between locals and expresses at Burnside or 149th. And it would be able to stop at heavy-hitting stations like Kingsbridge, Fordham and 161st, unlike an express starting at Woodlawn or Mosholu. And those stations would still have the same number of trains per hour as now. I’m inclined to believe a (4)(8) service actually might be time-competitive with a <4> express starting at Woodlawn and going express after Burnside. Perhaps it’s worth a try.

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

On 12/30/2019 at 10:00 AM, Lex said:

With the exception of anything beginning/ending at Church Avenue, all trains stop between Kings Highway and Church Avenue. This allows <F> trains to build ridership to remotely justify its operation.

Slightly, my ass. That would require half the trains in order to have a chance to work, and between the ridership patterns (including reverse commutes, which stand no chance at reaping any benefits in spite of Jerome being about as popular in both directions throughout the day, even while disregarding Yankee Stadium), the frequencies (unless you're willing to try to fight the White Plains Road and Dyre Avenue riders, good luck with getting fewer (5) trains just to run more than 15 (4) trains), and the merges that you just acknowledged, it would actually serve to worsen commutes. Express =/= better, after all.

In fact, the only thing I've ever really thought is that Jerome in particular simply needs more trains north of 149th Street.

 

On 12/30/2019 at 12:25 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But it has to be something different from what’s already been tried. For 16 years (well, 15 actually, if you don’t count the year after 9/11 that the (1) ran to New Lots Ave), we did have a skip-stop (1)(9) service from 242nd to 137th. Between the cutting back of the (9)’s service hours from all day Monday-Friday to just rush hours and making 191st an all-stop station, the service just didn’t accomplish what it was supposed to and was eventually discontinued. More recently (2009), we tried two <4> express pilot runs. Neither was very successful, probably because having five express trains skip Kingsbridge, Fordham and 161st made for much more crowded trains. I’ll explain more below.

What MTA tried is similar to the <4> Plan A you described, except your version now calls for only two trips per rush, like the <F> (and who knows how long that’s going to last?). But at least in the <F>’s case, riders have the rest of the regular rush hour (F) trains, plus the (G) with a transfer to fall back on. (4) riders don’t have a second Jerome service to fall back on (please, nobody say “Extend the (3) to Woodlawn,” thank you!). But even with the (G) running alongside the (F), if MTA tried to expand the <F> into a full blown rush/weekday express, I would fully expect blowback from riders north of Church Ave. Two <4> express runs is probably the best you can do, without receiving similar blowback from (4) riders. 

Suppose they do try the <4> Plan B you proposed. Well okay, now you’ve got the express trains stopping at Bedford, Kingsbridge and Fordham. Then they start their express run after Burnside. They skip five stops, including 161st, which is The Bronx’s busiest station. How much time do think it will save skipping just those five stops between Burnside and 149th? Figure roughly 30-40 seconds per stop, assuming no one foolishly holds the doors open (which we all know will happen). With a split between local and express, there will be fewer trains per rush at every Jerome Line station except Burnside and 149th. Unless you start both (4) and <4> trains at Woodlawn and then have the <4> trains go express after Burnside, count on trains being slower and more crowded than now, because it will take that much longer to get people on the trains and get the doors closed. You also have to have (4) and <4> trains merge back in with each other at 149th, then with the (5) after 138th, so count on that eating into the express’ time saving. 
 

I feel that having a (9) train run express, then merging back in with the (1) at Dyckman, then running express between 137th and 96th and merging back in again, isn’t going to save much time due to the merging before both Dyckman and 96th, like the scenario above where I described the (4) and <4> merging at 149th. 

No, probably not. And that’s why we haven’t had a (1) express anywhere north of 96th St for decades (since the 60s, maybe the 70s at the latest).

Likewise, a (4)(8) skip-stop service probably won’t save very much time in The Bronx either over the current all-stop (4). It would certainly affect riders traveling intra-borough. But it wouldn’t require any merging between locals and expresses at Burnside or 149th. And it would be able to stop at heavy-hitting stations like Kingsbridge, Fordham and 161st, unlike an express starting at Woodlawn or Mosholu. And those stations would still have the same number of trains per hour as now. I’m inclined to believe a (4)(8) service actually might be time-competitive with a <4> express starting at Woodlawn and going express after Burnside. Perhaps it’s worth a try.

All of you make valid points.

But since were on the topic of merging, does the <5> really save a lot of time running express between 3rd Av and East 180th St, especially with all that merging nonsense and those slow curves? I think not, so why does (MTA) continue to run it?

A lot of these merges can happen seamlessly if there is good enough dispatching on the line and if the space between trains is correct. But, I dont like Plan B because of the issues you described, so Plan A is the plan I'd go with, with two trips during each rush. As I said before, the last <4> pilot had good ridership, what's the loss in trying it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

All of you make valid points.

But since were on the topic of merging, does the <5> really save a lot of time running express between 3rd Av and East 180th St, especially with all that merging nonsense and those slow curves? I think not, so why does (MTA) continue to run it?

The reason for a <5> service existing is to separate north WPR and Dyre crowds - Dyre mainly consists of Manhattan-bound riders (mainly for the east side) while WPR consists more of intra-borough traffic. It therefore makes sense to separate these two crowds by having the (2) mainly serve the intra-borough traffic (considering a lower demand for the West Side and the (2)'s slower route into midtown) and having the (5) run express considering that more riders there are commuting into Manhattan for the east side. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The reason for a <5> service existing is to separate north WPR and Dyre crowds - Dyre mainly consists of Manhattan-bound riders (mainly for the east side) while WPR consists more of intra-borough traffic. It therefore makes sense to separate these two crowds by having the (2) mainly serve the intra-borough traffic (considering a lower demand for the West Side and the (2)'s slower route into midtown) and having the (5) run express considering that more riders there are commuting into Manhattan for the east side. 

So is this why they never swapped the the (2) and (5) and have the (2) be express, even though that meant less merging?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

All of you make valid points.

But since were on the topic of merging, does the <5> really save a lot of time running express between 3rd Av and East 180th St, especially with all that merging nonsense and those slow curves? I think not, so why does (MTA) continue to run it?

A lot of these merges can happen seamlessly if there is good enough dispatching on the line and if the space between trains is correct. But, I dont like Plan B because of the issues you described, so Plan A is the plan I'd go with, with two trips during each rush. As I said before, the last <4> pilot had good ridership, what's the loss in trying it again?

Did it? I mean, it’s been just over 10 years since the second pilot <4> run. It’s very possible it did get good ridership, but also possible that the remaining rush hour (4) runs experienced greater crowding, and Transit probably felt they couldn’t risk making the <4> a permanent service. 

9 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Yes

Not that they didn’t try, though. It failed so they swapped the (2) and (5) back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I mean, it’s been just over 10 years since the second pilot <4> run. It’s very possible it did get good ridership, but also possible that the remaining rush hour (4) runs experienced greater crowding, and Transit probably felt they couldn’t risk making the <4> a permanent service. 

The second <4> pilot did okay. And I'll have everyone know that during the second pilot there were timed connections at Burnside to give folks at Kingsbridge, Fordham, and 183rd an opportunity to use the <4> express train. I made the cross platform transfer successfully every single time I used the (4) in the morning during the 2nd pilot (I wasn't a regular rider during the 1st pilot unfortunately.)

On the other hand I don't know how the local (4) trains performed past Burnside.

But if there's any model that the (4) should use it should be the <F> model of having a couple of trains sprinkled in during rush hour. It would work in the morning for sure, but the evenings are a whole other animal (161 and Fordham are madhouses when trains from Manhattan pull in, even without accounting for stadium crowds and having every train make every stop.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

The second <4> pilot did okay. And I'll have everyone know that during the second pilot there were timed connections at Burnside to give folks at Kingsbridge, Fordham, and 183rd an opportunity to use the <4> express train. I made the cross platform transfer successfully every single time I used the (4) in the morning during the 2nd pilot (I wasn't a regular rider during the 1st pilot unfortunately.)

On the other hand I don't know how the local (4) trains performed past Burnside.

But if there's any model that the (4) should use it should be the <F> model of having a couple of trains sprinkled in during rush hour. It would work in the morning for sure, but the evenings are a whole other animal (161 and Fordham are madhouses when trains from Manhattan pull in, even without accounting for stadium crowds and having every train make every stop.)

161st St tends to be a hold point for uptown (4) trains a lot of the time, but I don't think that there will be confused passengers as long as the train is signed up correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, paulrivera said:

The second <4> pilot did okay. And I'll have everyone know that during the second pilot there were timed connections at Burnside to give folks at Kingsbridge, Fordham, and 183rd an opportunity to use the <4> express train. I made the cross platform transfer successfully every single time I used the (4) in the morning during the 2nd pilot (I wasn't a regular rider during the 1st pilot unfortunately.)

On the other hand I don't know how the local (4) trains performed past Burnside.

But if there's any model that the (4) should use it should be the <F> model of having a couple of trains sprinkled in during rush hour. It would work in the morning for sure, but the evenings are a whole other animal (161 and Fordham are madhouses when trains from Manhattan pull in, even without accounting for stadium crowds and having every train make every stop.)

I almost feel like either the <F> model or (4)(8) skip-stop are the only real options. Maybe it would be possible to have the <4> trains stop at 161st before going express, so that all (4) service stops there. 

22 hours ago, Shore El Express said:

The fact is that the 4 was not built to meet today's standards. An entire rebuilding of the line would need to be made, an while it's not completely feasible, I do agree with the fact that the 4 commute from the northernmost stops is ridiculous and some sort of express service should be put into play.

As someone who grew up riding the (2) and (5) trains in The Bronx, I beg to differ. Jerome is a far straighter route to Manhattan with fewer stops and far fewer sharp curves than White Plains Road/Southern Blvd/Westchester Ave. If you’re traveling from beyond Woodlawn, then the (4) commute can be ridiculous. And in fairness, WPR riders, do have the <5> Thru Express. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe it would be possible to have the <4> trains stop at 161st before going express, so that all (4) service stops there.

They do that already, but they end at Burnside which makes the trains worthless for 90% of the riders up there (but very efficient for dispatching and operations.)

If the trains were to continue past Burnside, the merging and diverging moves would make time savings moot. The D15 north of 149th, a D10 at 167 and a D10 north of Kingsbridge/Bedford Park would eat up just enough time to make an express <4> unsustainable.

At least when the (D) express has to stop at 161, it goes back to the express to avoid a conga line formation at Bedford Park with the (B) trains. As we know already, the (4) line doesn't have any equivalent terminal north of Burnside to cleanly turn trains around while actually benefiting riders.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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