CenSin Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #151 Posted February 11, 2012 With both the 8 Av Local and the 6 Av Express having extra space, it shouldn't be so bad. It's not as simple as addition. In fact, the more routes that share a line, the lower its capacity. Switching reduces capacity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #152 Posted February 11, 2012 Well, the more services you divide the line for, the greater the likelihood of a problem. It's not as simple as addition. Trains that run the same exact route can be managed very well. Trains from merging routes can't be managed so easily. It works with the , which come quite close to 30 during the peak of the rush. Also, doesn't having more services simplify things a bit? For example, suppose that the are alone on the 6 Av local tracks. That doesn't give much flexibility because even the slightest reroute of selected trains will get everything out of order, followers in front of their leaders, etc. If there are 3 services, then the crews will stay in order, the crews will stay in order, and the crews will stay in order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 11, 2012 Share #153 Posted February 11, 2012 The as a rush hour-only line from Church-96th/125th is a very good idea if they can handle the crossover at 63rd. A side benefit of such a line is that select trains can go express in Brooklyn during those hours and the would be much less crowded in Park Slope (especially if you can do more than 6 TPH with such a ). Ok, what in the bluest of blue hell does this have to do with anything? Once again, I called it right...this thread is now a lost cause 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #154 Posted February 11, 2012 [ runs local from Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park using the Queens Boulevard-Rockaway connection (and obviously replacing the on Queens Boulevard to 63rd Drive) with stops at Aqueduct and Howard Beach-JFK. This also eliminates the Rockaway Park since the would be a 24/7 line. returns to running to 71st-Continental, but on weekdays the and would both during rush hours go with the to 179th (while the ran express at those times all the way on QB) in order to prevent backups at 71-Continental.[/color][/size][/font] Dude, are you high or something...?? All your fantasy will never happen. KEEP dreaming.. via LIRR Rockaway branch? I LOL'ed at this. Your in "Phila" as you claim... Maybe you'd like to improve the Broad Street and MFL lines instead? But wait... That may also become a failure as well.. SMH! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #155 Posted February 11, 2012 Ok, what in the bluest of blue hell does this have to do with anything? Once again, I called it right...this thread is now a lost cause What exactly did your post contribute to the discussion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #156 Posted February 11, 2012 It works with the , which come quite close to 30 during the peak of the rush. Also, doesn't having more services simplify things a bit? For example, suppose that the are alone on the 6 Av local tracks. That doesn't give much flexibility because even the slightest reroute of selected trains will get everything out of order, followers in front of their leaders, etc. If there are 3 services, then the crews will stay in order, the crews will stay in order, and the crews will stay in order. I don't think it does. There are way too many delays all the time. Think DeKalb Avenue, 34 Street (before service cuts), and Prince Street (now). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #157 Posted February 11, 2012 I don't think it does. There are way too many delays all the time. Think DeKalb Avenue, 34 Street (before service cuts), and Prince Street (now). Prince Street (and the current debacle at 34th) is mostly the result of incompetent dispatching. Whether that can be fixed, I don't know, but I have heard many stories where things could have been fixed. And it works on the at 149 Street, does it not? And the have a much higher frequency. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 11, 2012 Share #158 Posted February 11, 2012 It works with the , which come quite close to 30 during the peak of the rush. Also, doesn't having more services simplify things a bit? For example, suppose that the are alone on the 6 Av local tracks. That doesn't give much flexibility because even the slightest reroute of selected trains will get everything out of order, followers in front of their leaders, etc. If there are 3 services, then the crews will stay in order, the crews will stay in order, and the crews will stay in order. I take the almost every day. It always gets held up at 34th waiting for the on the local track to leave. Sometimes an will come into 34th, then leave, all while my is still sitting there. If that's what passes for "it works," then the NYC subways got real problems. Then there's the waiting at Prince St junction, which I'm not so sure more "competent" dispatching alone can solve. The ultimate solution is to not have Broadway trains constantly switching from local to express at various points along the Broadway Line. That's why I suggested running the to 2nd Avenue with the , so that there will be no more hybrid local/expresses; no more switching from from local to express or vice versa. What's wrong with having just one local? The is the sole local on 7th Avenue and upper Broadway and the is the sole local on Lexington Avenue. The got away with being the sole 6th Avenue local from 1989 to 2001. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #159 Posted February 11, 2012 I take the almost every day. It always gets held up at 34th waiting for the on the local track to leave. Sometimes an will come into 34th, then leave, all while my is still sitting there. If that's what passes for "it works," then the NYC subways got real problems. Then there's the waiting at Prince St junction, which I'm not so sure more "competent" dispatching alone can solve. The ultimate solution is to not have Broadway trains constantly switching from local to express at various points along the Broadway Line. That's why I suggested running the to 2nd Avenue with the , so that there will be no more hybrid local/expresses; no more switching from from local to express or vice versa. What's wrong with having just one local? The is the sole local on 7th Avenue and upper Broadway and the is the sole local on Lexington Avenue. The got away with being the sole 6th Avenue local from 1989 to 2001. We can all agree that 34th St is the result of incompetence. Yes? Good. As for Prince St, they somehow do it in the Bronx ( goes from the to the ) and it works much better, even with higher frequencies. So they must be doing something right. So if switching back and forth is eliminated, then my first plan seems like the way to go. 8 tph 125 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach all times. Express in Manhattan and on 4 Av. Nights full local.8 tph 125 St to Coney Island via Brighton. Express in Manhattan, local in Brooklyn. 8 tph Current service. 8 tph Astoria to Whitehall or Canal. Local. 8 tph (_) Some other train. Astoria to 9 Av. Express in Manhattan, over the bridge, 4 Av Local. The sole 34 St-esque merge in the plan above would be with the . If merging with the is too difficult for the MTA, then that is sad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nu1116 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #160 Posted February 11, 2012 I was always under the impression that the West End Line had higher ridership than the Sea Beach Line and that's why from 1986 to 2010 the West End had two lines - ( B )/(Mx) (1986-1988); (:)/(Mx) (1988-2001); (W)/(Mx) (2001-2004) and finally (D)/(Mx) from 2004 to 2010, when the (Mx) and became the current service. During that 24-year period the Sea Beach Line had just the , except for the seven weeks after 9/11/01 when the was suspended and the (Mx) replaced it in Brooklyn and the three trains that ran to/from Kings Highway in the 2004-2010 period. No need to send a full second service to the Sea Beach, but there may be a good reason to send one to the West End. "May" is the key word here as I've read that the seems to be handling the West End decently on its own. The local is not a great solution. It is that bad. It ties up the junction at Prince Street and holds up both and service in that area. It was made local because the doesn't run frequently enough to serve 49th, 28th, 23rd, 8th and Prince on its own. The MTA could just run more trains, but they claim they don't have the money to do so. But then again, they could have done that all along (i.e. back in 2004) before they got hit with that huge funding crisis, courtesy of our friends in the State Legislature. In the past, the West End had higher ridership than the Sea Beach, but according to the 2010 ridership statistic, both lines have similar ridership, with the West End a little bit higher. This may be simply because the West End has more stations, however. The Sea Beach's ridership is increasing in a faster rate. Bay Parkway is the only station on the West End that has more than 2 millions riders in 2010, while the Sea Beach has 3, they are 8th Ave, Fort Hamilton Parkway, and Bay Parkway. That is why I said that extending to the Sea Beach actually benefits more people. Unfortunately, it isn't going to work. Both lines don't need a second service anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 11, 2012 Share #161 Posted February 11, 2012 What exactly did your post contribute to the discussion? I don't have to contribute anything. If you wanna get technical about it, the OP asked a simple question about whats gonna happen with the once the SAS opens (whenev that will be) and I'm pretty sure it was answered with a "just wait and see" since none of us knows the definite answer, and as I first posted, people threw the amd now the in it. Now what exactly did you contribute to this thread other than more unessecary reroutes or unlikely new service patterns 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #162 Posted February 11, 2012 Prince Street (and the current debacle at 34th) is mostly the result of incompetent dispatching. Whether that can be fixed, I don't know, but I have heard many stories where things could have been fixed. And it works on the at 149 Street, does it not? And the have a much higher frequency. Two lines v three lines 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #163 Posted February 11, 2012 There isn't enough room for either a new Broadway Local or a Sixth Avenue Local. Adding a new service into either of these lines would end up resulting in congestion of the current lines now. My best suggestion for now is to have more track connections to the Second Avenue Line so future services can use them and it would alleviate congestion. For example a connection should be built to allow the to connect to the Culver Line from Houston Street. If you do this you don't have to build phase 4 and save costs. You could leave a borehole to build phase 4 later though, and you can also have the run local or express on the Culver Line. This would be much cheaper than using a new tunnel which saves cost because the Rutgers Street Tunnel already exist. See I how am using real infrastructure to save costs. That is an example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #164 Posted February 11, 2012 There isn't enough room for either a new Broadway Local or a Sixth Avenue Local. Adding a new service into either of these lines would end up resulting in congestion of the current lines now. My best suggestion for now is to have more track connections to the Second Avenue Line so future services can use them and it would alleviate congestion. For example a connection should be built to allow the to connect to the Culver Line from Houston Street. If you do this you don't have to build phase 4 and save costs. You could leave a borehole to build phase 4 later though, and you can also have the run local or express on the Culver Line. This would be much cheaper than using a new tunnel which saves cost because the Rutgers Street Tunnel already exist. See I how am using real infrastructure to save costs. That is an example. Can you quit foaming already? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #165 Posted February 11, 2012 It's already proposed. Unfortunately, even if Amtrak approves, we don't really know if ESA will free up enough space to make New Haven service to Penn Station worthwhile - plus there's possible Hudson Line service to Penn Station to think about. There are so many obstacles to starting up New Haven service via Hell Gate... but I'm sure the will work something out. What do you think of these places to build stations? - Earhart Lane & Erskine Place [Co-Op City] - Eastchester Rd & Bassett Rd [Westchester/Morris Park, right near Calvary Hospital and a couple other Hospitals] - E Tremont Av & White Plains Rd [Parkchester] - Hunts Point Av & Garrison Av [Hunts Point, a stone's throw away from the train station] Here's how it would look on the map Sorry if it's hard to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #166 Posted February 11, 2012 There isn't enough room for either a new Broadway Local or a Sixth Avenue Local. Adding a new service into either of these lines would end up resulting in congestion of the current lines now. My best suggestion for now is to have more track connections to the Second Avenue Line so future services can use them and it would alleviate congestion. For example a connection should be built to allow the to connect to the Culver Line from Houston Street. If you do this you don't have to build phase 4 and save costs. You could leave a borehole to build phase 4 later though, and you can also have the run local or express on the Culver Line. This would be much cheaper than using a new tunnel which saves cost because the Rutgers Street Tunnel already exist. See I how am using real infrastructure to save costs. That is an example. This is the current problem with how we expand. We cut too many corners just like how we reduced a full line going across Queens to the less useful Archer Avenue spur and 63 Street connector—zero capacity was added for moving trains across Queens. (just a comment about the way things are planned…) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #167 Posted February 11, 2012 Can you quit foaming already? I am not. I am just using the (MTA)'s current proposal and cutting on it to save costs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 11, 2012 Share #168 Posted February 11, 2012 There isn't enough room for either a new Broadway Local or a Sixth Avenue Local. Adding a new service into either of these lines would end up resulting in congestion of the current lines now. My best suggestion for now is to have more track connections to the Second Avenue Line so future services can use them and it would alleviate congestion. For example a connection should be built to allow the to connect to the Culver Line from Houston Street. If you do this you don't have to build phase 4 and save costs. You could leave a borehole to build phase 4 later though, and you can also have the run local or express on the Culver Line. This would be much cheaper than using a new tunnel which saves cost because the Rutgers Street Tunnel already exist. See I how am using real infrastructure to save costs. That is an example. OR have the run via a connection to the Nassau Street Line running from Houston to either the Bowery or Canal Street station (possibly with either or both stations returned to their former four tracks and what used to be the "express" tracks in those stations now used for service before it joined the on the "local" track after either Bowery or Canal Street). This would make for much greater use of the existing Nassau Street line and help relieve overcrowding on the (4)/(5) between 125th and Atlantic-Pacific. If that got built, I would also do it with a connection to the Broadway-Brooklyn line that would allow for a future service to use the line and/or for the or to be re-routed via 2nd Avenue when necessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #169 Posted February 11, 2012 OR have the run via a connection to the Nassau Street Line running from Houston to either the Bowery or Canal Street station (possibly with either or both stations returned to their former four tracks and what used to be the "express" tracks in those stations now used for service before it joined the on the "local" track after either Bowery or Canal Street). This would make for much greater use of the existing Nassau Street line and help relieve overcrowding on the (4)/(5) between 125th and Atlantic-Pacific. If that got built, I would also do it with a connection to the Broadway-Brooklyn line that would allow for a future service to use the line and/or for the or to be re-routed via 2nd Avenue when necessary. There is NO CONNECTION to the Nassau Street Line on the , and the if it exists is going to run nowhere near the Nassau Street Line so it can't connect with the Nassau Street Line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgor Posted February 11, 2012 Share #170 Posted February 11, 2012 EVERYBODY: Stop having a wet dream and listen the F*** UP... The Second Avenue Subway extension as far as 96th Street MAY happen, and even if everything sticks to plan it will be AT LEAST 5 years until then. An extension further to 125th Street is HIGHLY UNLIKELY due to LACK OF MONEY. It may possibly happen in our lifetimes, but I wouldn't bet on it. --- Beyond this line is pure fantasy, and if you honestly believe any of this will happen then you need help --- The train will NEVER, I repeat NEVER come into existence before we die. There will be no T train to Hanover Square No extension into Brooklyn No sending it up to the Bronx ... NOTHING -- The MAY come back into existence, but none of us know or will our opinions have ANY impact on the MTA's decision. Remember, this is assuming that they actually do complete the Second Avenue Subway up to 96th Street, and like I previously said, it will be AT LEAST 5 YEARS if the MTA sticks to their schedule, which they previously have not. If they had stuck to their schedule, it would be opening up in a few months, but it's not. ... And yes, I MUST reiterate the image that Roadcruiser1 posted because it expresses my entire thoughts about this thread after the first few posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #171 Posted February 11, 2012 EVERYBODY: Stop having a wet dream and listen the F*** UP... The Second Avenue Subway extension as far as 96th Street MAY happen, and even if everything sticks to plan it will be AT LEAST 5 years until then. An extension further to 125th Street is HIGHLY UNLIKELY due to LACK OF MONEY. It may possibly happen in our lifetimes, but I wouldn't bet on it. --- Beyond this line is pure fantasy, and if you honestly believe any of this will happen then you need help --- The train will NEVER, I repeat NEVER come into existence before we die. There will be no T train to Hanover Square No extension into Brooklyn No sending it up to the Bronx ... NOTHING -- The MAY come back into existence, but none of us know or will our opinions have ANY impact on the MTA's decision. Remember, this is assuming that they actually do complete the Second Avenue Subway up to 96th Street, and like I previously said, it will be AT LEAST 5 YEARS if the MTA sticks to their schedule, which they previously have not. If they had stuck to their schedule, it would be opening up in a few months, but it's not. ... And yes, I MUST reiterate the image that Roadcruiser1 posted because it expresses my entire thoughts about this thread after the first few posts. Chill out, no need for anger.. Its annoying when a topic is made and later turns off topic. Everyone can FORGET the . Its UNKNOWN if it ill come back. It could but UNKNOWN. was cut because of budget, NOT related to the SAS or anything. The I don't see coming back, the is doing a good job, I have no problems with it (Don't care for orange haters ether). For the i don't see a future for a WHILE, it ill likely come in when we are all dead, if it does. Remember Phase I isn't even finished, and god knows if 2016 will be the finish line. As i said before, I don't care about any extensions, all I care about is the IRT Lexington Avenue Line as well as buses in the east getting a relief from crowd and having the SAS do most of the work. If none of you want to deal with problems, then just don't bring anything to the table and keep it on topic. sheeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted February 11, 2012 Author Share #172 Posted February 11, 2012 There is NO CONNECTION to the Nassau Street Line on the , and the if it exists is going to run nowhere near the Nassau Street Line so it can't connect with the Nassau Street Line. Actually, he's right. The MTA did propose such a connection for phase 4. They determined that the soil type would make it difficult to make such a connection without special equipment, but it's still a possibility. As for a connection to the Jamaica line over the Williamsburg Bridge, they might have to sever the Christie Street connection to Jamaica to make it possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 11, 2012 Share #173 Posted February 11, 2012 Phase 2 can be built. The tunnels to it already exists. All you need to do is add signals, and stations, but it exists. It was built in the 1970's, but phase 3 hasn't been built and there isn't even any existing tunnel segment down there. So it is still uncertain. Existing sections in black. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 11, 2012 Share #174 Posted February 11, 2012 There are still missing sections... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 12, 2012 Share #175 Posted February 12, 2012 There is NO CONNECTION to the Nassau Street Line on the , and the if it exists is going to run nowhere near the Nassau Street Line so it can't connect with the Nassau Street Line. Just like how its not gonna connect to the Culver no matter how many times you throw it out there Just saying... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.