|
|
| Increase in L train service (1160846) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (1160846) | |
Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Hart Bus on Fri Jun 8 10:24:49 2012 According to a big article in today's Newsday the TA will be increasing service on the L line by 16 R/T's a day during the week, 11 trips on Saturday and 7 on Sunday to ease the overcrowding |
|
|
| (1160847) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012, in response to Increase in L train service, posted by Hart Bus on Fri Jun 8 10:24:49 2012. North Brooklyn straphangers are finally getting a break.The MTA will add nearly 100 trains each week along the L line starting Sunday, providing much-needed service for the route, which has seen sardine-like conditions for more than a decade. Starting this weekend, 16 additional round trips will run each weekday, 11 more will go on Saturdays and another seven on Sundays, an MTA spokesman said. Although ridership has exploded along the L line in recent years -- more than doubling since 1998 -- the MTA had increased the number of trains over the same time by only about 50 percent. The agency recently improved the signal system along the L line, allowing trains to run more frequently. It is currently doing similar work on the No. 7 line. "Our work to improve signals continues to bear fruit and improve service for our customers," MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz said Thursday. "This should ease overcrowding on a line that serves continuously growing populations in Williamsburg , Bushwick and Canarsie ." The MTA has struggled to meet its own guidelines for how many riders should be on each train. The "maximum load" for its eight-car trains is supposed to be 1,160 on weekdays and 430 people on weekends. But rush-hour trains during the week have been above capacity nearly every year since 1998, agency documents show. With the extra trains, weekday rush-hour service will go from 110 percent capacity to 98 percent. On weekday nights, the added service is still expected to leave trains over capacity. The new service will cost $1.7 million annually, under a plan approved by the MTA's board in October. State Sen. Daniel Sqaudron, who had pushed the MTA to add service along the L and F lines, said he was happy Brooklyn residents would be a little less cramped on the often-packed subways. "This is not going to be the silver bullet, but this is real good news for L train riders," Squadron said Thursday. "Anyone tired of the crushing crowds and overflowing trains will now have an L train trip less likely to feel like hell." --- newsday |
|
|
| (1160849) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 8 10:46:34 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. It's certainly good news that the improved service has been met with increased ridership. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1160863) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 12:42:21 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. All the money they spent making the entire Southern Division 10 car platforms, I think it's time to consider the same for Canarsie. |
|
|
| (1160864) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Fri Jun 8 12:47:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jun 8 10:46:34 2012. I believe in this situation, it was the other way around. The increased ridership has been met with improved service. |
|
|
| (1160865) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 12:59:53 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. It's time to convert the line to 600' trains. |
|
|
| (1160867) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jun 8 13:14:37 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 12:59:53 2012. Or at least certify all the platforms for 540' trains so that 9 car sets can run on the Canarsie line. Some of the Yard tracks can already handle 540' and 600' trains. The longer trains would predominantly run during Peak hrs. |
|
|
| (1160869) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 8 13:39:32 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 12:42:21 2012. Absolutely correct. |
|
|
| (1160880) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jun 8 14:23:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jun 8 13:14:37 2012. Outside, only 2 maybe 3 trains in ENY can handle train of more then 8 cars and there on the Deck. The lower yard has no tracks that can handle a full 8 car train unless they over lap the switch to other track. This is what they do, to have full trains for service from there. |
|
|
| (1160886) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 14:36:32 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jun 8 14:23:42 2012. Then how did ENY Yd handle the 8 car trains of BMT steels that operated on the Jamaica LIne prior to the R-16s, not to mention the 3 unit Multi trains that operated on the 14 St Line? |
|
|
| (1160887) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 14:36:41 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jun 8 14:23:42 2012. Then how did ENY Yd handle the 8 car trains of BMT steels that operated on the Jamaica LIne prior to the R-16s, not to mention the 3 unit Multi trains that operated on the 14 St Line? |
|
|
| (1160890) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:49:38 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 14:36:32 2012. 8X67=536, 64 feet shorter than a full length 10 car train today. |
|
|
| (1160891) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 14:49:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 8 13:39:32 2012. It's almost a half-century since they extended the Southern Division platforms. Back in the day they probably figured East would never need 600 foot platforms. |
|
|
| (1160892) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 14:50:34 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:49:38 2012. I think you mean 8-car train. |
|
|
| (1160893) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:52:41 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 12:42:21 2012. And they never exploited most of it for years. Until 1986, the B, R and Q trains used 480' trains exclusively. They only switched when the north side of the bridge closed down and train numbers were cut, necessitating the need for longer trains. In 1985, the only 2 lines which operated 600' trains through Dekalb Ave were the D (always) and N (weekdays). |
|
|
| (1160896) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:59:11 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 14:49:42 2012. The J and M don't. Both have capacity to run more trains if demand increases. The L is reaching the limits of even it's new signal system. There's only one answer for it: extension. I would suggest that the MTA contract with Kawasaki to make a number of "blind" cars compatible with the R143 so that each 4 car set can have be increased to 5 by inserting it in the middle (like the old BMT 4XXX trailers were). No FIND, no stripmaps. Just a basic car. |
|
|
| (1160897) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 15:01:15 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:59:11 2012. Stick an R32 in. ;-) |
|
|
| (1160899) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 15:03:24 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:52:41 2012. IIRC, they ran full length trains on the B right after Chrystie opened. |
|
|
| (1160901) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:11:18 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 15:01:15 2012. "Attention ladies and gentlemen, foamer seating is now available in the center of each train set" |
|
|
| (1160903) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:14:31 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 15:03:24 2012. My memories only date to 1985. The B and the AA/K basically shared the same fleet, and used only 8-car trains, mostly R38/42's. Even during rush hour. |
|
|
| (1160904) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:16:19 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 15:03:24 2012. The B did NOT run 600 ft trains immediately after Chrystie opened since at that time the only Southern Div line that could accommodate 10 car trains was the Brighton Line I was several years before the West End and Sea Beach lines had their platforms lengthened to 10 cars and the Bway and 4 Av subways also had to be completed before the entire Southern Div was able to run 10 car trains. When I was a M/M in 1969 and 1970, the B, RR and N were still running 8 car trains and that continued into at least 1970 when I became a T/D and was still dealing with 8 car trains on those lines. |
|
|
| (1160906) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:18:41 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:49:38 2012. He was talking about 9 X 60 footers which at 540 ft would only be 4 ft longer than 8 steels. |
|
|
| (1160907) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:26:25 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:16:19 2012. If so, they were doing the same things by the mid 1980's. The only two lines I recall using the "IND" train length (what I called it back then) was the D and N, which both ran on the IND for some part of it's route. The B, QB, RR and weekend N were all 480' in my (admittedly) limited experiences. |
|
|
| (1160908) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:29:08 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:18:41 2012. My bad. I don't think one extra car would suffice and it would make the Canarsie line even more of an oddball route. 10 cars would allow anything to run on it R143 and up. |
|
|
| (1160909) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 8 15:47:00 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. Since the overcrowding is north of Broadway Jct, I wonder if any of them will short turn at Myrtle, instead of continuing to/from Canarsie. |
|
|
| (1160911) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 8 15:52:32 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. Or, how about a skip-stop like the J/Z, with both trains stopping at Bedford and other heavily used stops? |
|
|
| (1160919) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 16:13:49 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:11:18 2012. LOL! |
|
|
| (1160920) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 16:15:02 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:18:41 2012. Also my bad, I was looking at what he was saying upside down. |
|
|
| (1160927) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jun 8 16:50:57 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 14:36:32 2012. ENY tracks were able to hold full trains on the Lower yard up until they added the tower. When they did this all the track were moved to the way they are now. I don't know why they did this, but they did. I was told this from many T/O who have time. |
|
|
| (1160931) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 17:10:27 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Jun 8 16:50:57 2012. The MTA went out of it's way to assure the eastern division could not expand to 600' trains in the 1990's. |
|
|
| (1160932) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 8 17:46:11 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:29:08 2012. So your R143 would have to be 4 - 4 - 2I'd rather just see Alstom R160's of 5 - 4. Yes, there are CBTC issues. |
|
|
| (1160933) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 8 17:47:23 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 14:36:41 2012. Could Rockaway Pkwy handle 9 cars with all the crap on the north end of the platform ? |
|
|
| (1160942) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Jun 8 18:40:53 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 8 12:42:21 2012. Or else use the already expended investment in CBTC to implement OPTO and save money while running more trains that will provide the same or greater capacity with more convenience to the passengers. |
|
|
| (1160949) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:17:49 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 15:26:25 2012. That would be correct. The N, however was a bit of an anomaly as it ran 8 car trains whether they were R-32 or R-46 since Jamaica Yd supplied the cars. Since at that time the B was part of the former AA route (changed around that time to K), that line also ran 8 car trains. The RR also had to run 8 car trains of 60 footers since there were still RR Nassau St specials and 600 ft trains can't operate into Nassau St. All RRs were kept at 480 ft in the event a RR Bway train had to be converted to Nassau service on the stand at 95 St since RR Nassau intervals were not supposed to be dropped as was also the case with QBs on the Brighton Line. |
|
|
| (1160950) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:19:07 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 17:10:27 2012. And at some point it may regret that decision. |
|
|
| (1160951) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:20:59 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 8 17:47:23 2012. I can't say for sure but I believe that when the old station burned down in 1968, for some reason the new station was built 600 ft long. |
|
|
| (1160952) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:23:55 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 8 15:52:32 2012. I believe that was considered at some point which is why the letter K was not used for the J Line skip stop service. When the 8 Av K was eliminated, the letter K was reserved for an alternate letter designation to be used for a 14 St Line skip stop. |
|
|
| (1160972) | |
MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 8 20:05:02 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:23:55 2012. MTA announced that AM rush hour headways will now be every 3 minutes (up from 3 1/2 minutes)Weekday/mid-day headways will be every 6 minutes (up from 7 1/2 minutes) Saturday evening headways will be every 6 minutes (up from 7 1/2 minutes) Sunday evening headways will be every 6 minutes (up from 8 1/2 minutes) No mention of changes in weeknight and weekend daytime headway changes so the assumption is these will be unchanged. |
|
|
| (1160988) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 8 22:27:32 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 15:16:19 2012. thats NOT what he said...he said the B ran full length trains..that does not mean 600 ft..it could mean 480..300 whatever.. |
|
|
| (1161005) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jun 9 00:30:43 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:23:55 2012. Which is why is appeared on the R110B rollsign in gray. |
|
|
| (1161006) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 00:39:51 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 12:59:53 2012. Or just run more trains, with that fancy signalling system we already paid for. |
|
|
| (1161019) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 06:31:39 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:23:55 2012. True, but they could have made it Y. K also had a bad connotation from when it was KK: you do not call a train running through what was then a largely Black area "KK", sounds to much like the white hooded folks. |
|
|
| (1161020) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by bzuck on Sat Jun 9 08:22:47 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 8 15:47:00 2012. I have always thought they should short turn at Myrtle but the problem is the fumagation would block the line. The only way they can do it is to relax the fumagation rule.I would have the crew drop back one train. When the train comes in the new C/R and T/O should lock themselves in the cabs while the old crew remains locked in thsir cabs. Also have two police officers ride into the pocket. This way if someone does not get off the crews will remain safe and they can do the cut back without delaying service. |
|
|
| (1161035) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:05:35 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 00:39:51 2012. Or just run more trains, with that fancy signalling system we already paid for.The problem is the TA did not purchase enough car borne signalling equipment to operate the line at capacity. CBTC's weakness is that every train must be CBTC equipped. |
|
|
| (1161036) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:11:26 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Jun 8 15:52:32 2012. how about a skip-stop like the J/Z, with both trains stopping at Bedford and other heavily used stops?About 1/2 the passengers enter/leave between Myrtle and Bedford. It would be better to revert to the express/local service patterns that existed between 1936 and 1956. The difference with the Jamaica Ave Line is that most of the passengers get on at or near the terminal stations. The object skip stop is to reduce intermediate station dwell time. |
|
|
| (1161037) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:16:13 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Fri Jun 8 18:40:53 2012. use the already expended investment in CBTC to implement OPTO and save money while running more trains that will provide the same or greater capacity with more convenience to the passengers.CBTC (or any other signal system) does not increase service level capacity. The BOT and TA used to operate 24 tph on the Canarsie Line. The proposed change will result in 20 tph during the morning rush hour. That's still only 80% of what they had before the CBTC investment. |
|
|
| (1161041) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:15:35 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:16:13 2012. 15 tph to 20 tph is a 33% increase after CBTC and 24 tph has nothing to do with anything. That was perhaps once considered the safe capacity, but the reality is that has not been considered the safe operating capacity for many years. |
|
|
| (1161043) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:24:44 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Fri Jun 8 18:40:53 2012. Agreed. Although $1.7 million per year is fairly cheap as it is. Can they eventually run 30 tph? |
|
|
| (1161044) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 13:36:53 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:15:35 2012. How is it not safe with tripper arms enforcing spacing? Given that 8th Ave is a stub terminal, there should be no delay in fallback recrewing and departing. The limit might be how long the crossover takes to reset, but that is surely less than 3 minutes.Since the train is never out of public areas, there should be no need for full "fumigation". Worst case a quick walk through by a cop while the crews are changing. |
|
|
| (1161045) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 13:38:33 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:05:35 2012. worse yet EVERY CAR |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
