Fixing B Division Service

[R142A-6-Train]

So I've been wanting to do this ever since like... Right now. I've also been wanting to talk about it what I would like to see is...

 207th Street to Far Rockaway (Service will be unaffected, although service to Lefferts will be replaced.)

 168th Street to Brighton Beach (Extended from 145th to 168th.)

 205th Street or Bedford Park Blvd to World Trade Center (Revival of the Pre-1988  service pattern; Service to Bedford Park Boulevard during Rush Hours, Other times to Norwood-205th Street.)

 205th Street or 145th Street to Coney Island via West End (Service cut back to 145th Street; Rush Hour service via Peak Direction will be unaffected.)

 Jamacia Parsons/Archer to Lefferts Blvd (A huge change I want to see! 8th Avenue Service will be changed Express. It will become a more rounder line than the .)

What do you think? Do you have any ideas you would like to tell me, or do you strongly agree but have some questions?

[Cait Sith]

2 minutes ago, R142A-6-Train said:

So I've been wanting to do this ever since like... Right now. I've also been wanting to talk about it what I would like to see is...

 207th Street to Far Rockaway (Service will be unaffected, although service to Lefferts will be replaced.)

 168th Street to Brighton Beach (Extended from 145th to 168th.)

 205th Street or Bedford Park Blvd to World Trade Center (Revival of the Pre-1988  service pattern; Service to Bedford Park Boulevard during Rush Hours, Other times to Norwood-205th Street.)

 205th Street or 145th Street to Coney Island via West End (Service cut back to 145th Street; Rush Hour service via Peak Direction will be unaffected.)

 Jamacia Parsons/Archer to Lefferts Blvd (A huge change I want to see! 8th Avenue Service will be changed Express. It will become a more rounder line than the .)

What do you think? Do you have any ideas you would like to tell me, or do you strongly agree but have some questions?

The C, D and E ones don't really make much sense. Why would you send the C to 205 when it doesn't run 24/7, and why cut the D back?

And why send the E to Lefferts Blvd? That in itself doesn't make much sense when the E serves its purpose primarily on the QBL corridor.

[R142A-6-Train]

28 minutes ago, Cait Sith said:

The C, D and E ones don't really make much sense. Why would you send the C to 205 when it doesn't run 24/7, and why cut the D back?

And why send the E to Lefferts Blvd? That in itself doesn't make much sense when the E serves its purpose primarily on the QBL corridor.

Well, if I were to cut the  back to 145th, then it would be too short. That's why I used the Concourse line to give it extra stations. Perhaps having the  do the job during late nights would be a better solution. Rush Hour service remains the same due the middle track between Kingsbridge and Bedford Park having a weird pattern that I've had trouble trying to explain, so I'll just put it right there.

Credit: Vanshnookenraggen

And for the , I'll have to agree with you. It actually makes no sense to make it a circle and send it to Lefferts. I actually found it weird seeing the  split into two branches. Perhaps having the  terminate at Euclid Avenue would've been a better solution.

[Cait Sith]

32 minutes ago, R142A-6-Train said:

Well, if I were to cut the  back to 145th, then it would be too short. That's why I used the Concourse line to give it extra stations. Perhaps having the  do the job during late nights would be a better solution. Rush Hour service remains the same due the middle track between Kingsbridge and Bedford Park having a weird pattern that I've had trouble trying to explain, so I'll just put it right there.

Credit: Vanshnookenraggen

And for the , I'll have to agree with you. It actually makes no sense to make it a circle and send it to Lefferts. I actually found it weird seeing the  split into two branches. Perhaps having the  terminate at Euclid Avenue would've been a better solution.

The C being "too short" means absolutely nothing, especially when it serves its purpose being the Fulton Street & 8th Avenue Local line. Sending the C to 205 and cutting back to the D to 145 doesn't make much sense, as the D will end up going to 205 anyway under this idea of yours. Might as well keep the D to 205.

[RTOMan]

None of em are going to work..

Here's why..

CBTC work that's on going on 8th ave and then 6th ave right after..

That alone is going to warrant service adjustments.

[R142A-6-Train]

Well then I'll have to scrap those plans if you want me to.

It's only because the Canal Street crossovers on the 8th Av line have found me troubled and confused.

[R142A-6-Train]

10 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

The C being "too short" means absolutely nothing, especially when it serves its purpose being the Fulton Street & 8th Avenue Local line. Sending the C to 205 and cutting back to the D to 145 doesn't make much sense, as the D will end up going to 205 anyway under this idea of yours. Might as well keep the D to 205.

Well, yeah. But I meant the 145th to World Trade Center route would be too short.

[Kamen Rider]

The problem with this plan really pops up when discussing car assignments.

First of all, half the reason the service patterns operate the way they do now is because of what yards are where and what they can handle. Car Equipment makes that call, not us. 

Second of all, the C and B were switched in part because the B was not a full-time operation uptown.  this meant the A had to cover 155 and 163 when the B wasn't running there. so unless you intend to institute Brighton Express service on Saturday and Sunday, then every daytime Saturday and Sunday A would have to cross to the local and then back to the express. that, plus making those two extra stops, will slow down A service.

 

 

[R142A-6-Train]

12 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with this plan really pops up when discussing car assignments.

First of all, half the reason the service patterns operate the way they do now is because of what yards are where and what they can handle. Car Equipment makes that call, not us. 

Second of all, the C and B were switched in part because the B was not a full-time operation uptown.  this meant the A had to cover 155 and 163 when the B wasn't running there. so unless you intend to institute Brighton Express service on Saturday and Sunday, then every daytime Saturday and Sunday A would have to cross to the local and then back to the express. that, plus making those two extra stops, will slow down A service.

 

 

I have actually decided to scrap those plans and move on to the LaGuardia extension on the Astoria Line.

[CenSin]

17 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with this plan really pops up when discussing car assignments.

First of all, half the reason the service patterns operate the way they do now is because of what yards are where and what they can handle. Car Equipment makes that call, not us. 

Second of all, the C and B were switched in part because the B was not a full-time operation uptown.  this meant the A had to cover 155 and 163 when the B wasn't running there. so unless you intend to institute Brighton Express service on Saturday and Sunday, then every daytime Saturday and Sunday A would have to cross to the local and then back to the express. that, plus making those two extra stops, will slow down A service.

You’re taking at face value that these proposals were meant to fix something.

This tells you everything you need to know about the motivation:

On 1/15/2024 at 1:18 AM, R142A-6-Train said:

A huge change I want to see! 8th Avenue Service will be changed Express. It will become a more rounder line than the .

 

I’d start by asking what “fix” means.

Edited January 17 by CenSin

[LGA Link N Train]

On 1/16/2024 at 5:14 AM, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with this plan really pops up when discussing car assignments.

First of all, half the reason the service patterns operate the way they do now is because of what yards are where and what they can handle. Car Equipment makes that call, not us. 

This is true but lets say (because of 8th and 6th Avenue CBTC) the Yards that are affected by these proposals all house NTT’s at the discretion of Car Equipment (lets say 10 Car 179’s and 211’s for example), would that change the circumstances of this proposal’s Feasibility or no?

[R142A-6-Train]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

This is true but lets say (because of 8th and 6th Avenue CBTC) the Yards that are affected by these proposals all house NTT’s at the discretion of Car Equipment (lets say 10 Car 179’s and 211’s for example), would that change the circumstances of this proposal’s Feasibility or no?

I think we're gonna have to get rid of the R46s and displace the R68s from 6th Avenue to Broadway to make this change.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

This is true but lets say (because of 8th and 6th Avenue CBTC) the Yards that are affected by these proposals all house NTT’s at the discretion of Car Equipment (lets say 10 Car 179’s and 211’s for example), would that change the circumstances of this proposal’s Feasibility or no?

That doesn't begin to address the logistical issues she brought up.

[Gotham Bus Co.]

On a political level, it is very difficult to "fix" anything when so many people have a vested interest in preserving the problem (whether real or perceived).

[R142A-6-Train]

Let me put it this way again. I'll update it route proposals and car assignments (If you actually meant that. If not, tell me.)

 

 Service Unaffected

Service stays normal from 207th Street to either Lefferts Boulevard or Far Rockaway (Rockaway Park - Beach 116th Street during Rush Hours). Late night service will stay the same.

-Car assignments will stay the same.-

 

 168th Street to Brighton Beach

Replaces C service from 145th to 168th restoring the Pre-1999 service. Service below 145th Street stays the same. Weekdays only.

-R68s assigned to the B will move to the 207th and 174th Yard and stay the Coney Island Shop. Meanwhile, a few R46s can run on the B until the R211s fully arrive.-

 

 Norwood-205th Street to World Trade Center

Replaces full-time D service from 205th Street to 145th Street, and E local service from 34th Street-Penn Station to World Trade Center. This will de-interline the Canal switch and hopefully avoid confusion. During rush hours, the  will run peak-direction service in the Bronx. No service during late nights.

-R179s will move to the Concourse Yard. Some R160s and R68s can take of the R46s place until the R211s fully arrive.-

 

 Service cut back to 145th Street; Rush Hour terminus will be Bedford Park Blvd

Since the D is a basically longer route, I decided to cut it back to make it more shorter to give the C more stops. During rush hours, it will be extended until Bedford Park Blvd. During Late Nights, it will be extended back to 205th Street.

-R68s assigned to the D will still come from the Concourse Yard and the Coney Island Shop-

 

 Service extended to Euclid Avenue via 8th Avenue Express & Fulton Local

This will restore Pre-1978 service for the E line. Late nights will provide local service until World Trade Center. A similar service pattern to the late night Lexington Avenue service, except the A takes the role of the 4, and the E takes the role of the 6 pretending that World Trade Center is actually Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall.

-Some R160s will be moved to the Pitkin yard.

 

What do you think? Is this not confusing enough?

[Lex]

You realize you can just theoretically revert the  to the old / and send the  back to Brooklyn, right? Even then, I wouldn't be so quick to do that, as Jamaica already has two high-mileage routes with notable rolling stock demands and another route that further eats into spares, among other issues.

[R142A-6-Train]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

You realize you can just theoretically revert the  to the old / and send the  back to Brooklyn, right? Even then, I wouldn't be so quick to do that, as Jamaica already has two high-mileage routes with notable rolling stock demands and another route that further eats into spares, among other issues.

If that's what you want then I'm okay with that.

I'm only giving the  a proper extension to the Bronx so it wouldn't be too short.

[Kamen Rider]

Before I start, I would like to touch on the “it would be too short”… 

145 to the Trade Center is 20 stops.

A one way trip on the Canarsie line is 24 stops.

so it’s really not that short, when you think about it.

After all, a north/south mile in Manhattan is 20 blocks. When you do that math, a Manhattan local would get you about 8 1/2 miles.

 

That being said, like I said, there are a lot of logistical issues to go over before one can really consider such a plan. 
 

what yard would each service use, and by extension, what restrictions would those yards put on the lines?

whoever comes out of 207 for the 168 service, you’re stuck with the 8 car 179s. They’re not there because of a shortage, technically, they’re there because they’re all the 207 shop can support. The inspection board tracks can’t hold a full 10 car train, which means one of two things; you ether only service 5 cars at a time, leaving about 1/3 the shop track empty… or you get shorter trains. And given the load on the C, it made sense to order the 8 car units. In the old days of married pairs and single unit cars, you just needed to uncouple 2 and service the other 8, problem solved.

sure the C has R46s and the A will park in 207 yard, but those 46s are Pitkin Shop’s responsibility. 

just because a line can layup a train in a yard, does not mean they are based in that yard. 8 car 179s layup in Pitkin… but they’re the reverse, “property” of 207.

 

going with your idea… the B would have to use the C’s R179s. The C would use the D’s R68s out of Concourse and the D would have to become a Coney Island based line.

 

as it is right now:

the C needs 21 trains in the AM and 19 in the PM.

The B needs 25 in the AM and 23 in the PM.

And the D required 29 in the AM, 28 in the PM and because of the three it’s the only one that currently runs overnight, it required 11 trains for that.

Moving them around now, throws all of that out of whack without considering if the yards and shops can support such a move.

 

[RTOMan]

5 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

Before I start, I would like to touch on the “it would be too short”… 

145 to the Trade Center is 20 stops.

A one way trip on the Canarsie line is 24 stops.

so it’s really not that short, when you think about it.

After all, a north/south mile in Manhattan is 20 blocks. When you do that math, a Manhattan local would get you about 8 1/2 miles.

 

That being said, like I said, there are a lot of logistical issues to go over before one can really consider such a plan. 
 

what yard would each service use, and by extension, what restrictions would those yards put on the lines?

whoever comes out of 207 for the 168 service, you’re stuck with the 8 car 179s. They’re not there because of a shortage, technically, they’re there because they’re all the 207 shop can support. The inspection board tracks can’t hold a full 10 car train, which means one of two things; you ether only service 5 cars at a time, leaving about 1/3 the shop track empty… or you get shorter trains. And given the load on the C, it made sense to order the 8 car units. In the old days of married pairs and single unit cars, you just needed to uncouple 2 and service the other 8, problem solved.

sure the C has R46s and the A will park in 207 yard, but those 46s are Pitkin Shop’s responsibility. 

just because a line can layup a train in a yard, does not mean they are based in that yard. 8 car 179s layup in Pitkin… but they’re the reverse, “property” of 207.

 

going with your idea… the B would have to use the C’s R179s. The C would use the D’s R68s out of Concourse and the D would have to become a Coney Island based line.

 

as it is right now:

the C needs 21 trains in the AM and 19 in the PM.

The B needs 25 in the AM and 23 in the PM.

And the D required 29 in the AM, 28 in the PM and because of the three it’s the only one that currently runs overnight, it required 11 trains for that.

Moving them around now, throws all of that out of whack without considering if the yards and shops can support such a move.

 

Excellent analogy and it makes total sense as well..

Which will get ignored here for a even crazier idea.... 

I wont even get into the manpower required work programs timetables being changed...

Some folks just dont see these things...

[R142A-6-Train]

Perhaps making the  express would've been a better idea.

[Kamen Rider]

or... perhaps... leaving well enough alone. 

[R142A-6-Train]

Instead, maybe we can talk about getting rid of the  and introducing the ?
I mean, how does that sound?

[CenSin]

6 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said:

I mean, how does that sound?

A “fix” usually begins with a statement of the problem (or problems) that needs to be solved. None of your proposals thus far have been prefaced or postfaced with the problems they are fixing.

Other forum members were kind enough to explain why not, and after five rounds of rejections it’d behoove you to set the bar a little higher and give your ideas some legs to stand on.

[NewFlyer 230]

7 hours ago, R142A-6-Train said:

Instead, maybe we can talk about getting rid of the  and introducing the ?
I mean, how does that sound?

How would the  be different than the ? 
Sending it via 4th Ave would be a waste because it doesn’t serve Midtown and the line itself would get too long. 

 

[R142A-6-Train]

1 hour ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

How would the  be different than the ? 
Sending it via 4th Ave would be a waste because it doesn’t serve Midtown and the line itself would get too long. 

 

Actually, by removing Skip-Stop service.
MysticTransit has more on that: