|
|
| Re: Increase in L train service (1160846) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (1161178) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 05:26:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:22:52 2012. Nope, full ATO.*Leaving* the terminal the trains are operated manually for the sole purpose of performing the standard brake tests. |
|
|
| (1161180) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jun 10 07:57:24 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 9 17:16:06 2012. Anecdotally, I have heard that the bugs are out of the system. |
|
|
| (1161182) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Jun 10 08:08:32 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 10 04:34:05 2012. I think everyone knows at this point that Canarsie was a guinea pig for CBTC, which seriously inflated the cost of the installation. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1161243) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 14:25:06 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:22:52 2012. If ATO was not in control entering the terminals, I don't think 3 minute headways would be possible. If the t/o was operating manually, the train would come in much slower.The crossing over @ 14/8 and Canarsie is the biggest hurdle to the number of trains per hour. The faster they can get over the crossovers, the more TPH. |
|
|
| (1161244) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 14:30:01 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:51:14 2012. Later weekday evening service? The last thru trains leave their terminals around 11 PM.You have a point about weekend service, but due to GO's and the number of extra crews and additional car mileage..........it would be a big expense that I don't think the MTA is willing to do. |
|
|
| (1161246) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Sun Jun 10 14:31:01 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 14:30:01 2012. Agreed. |
|
|
| (1161260) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 15:21:31 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 10 04:44:52 2012. That would appear to not be the case: #1161178 |
|
|
| (1161262) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 15:44:20 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by LRG5784 on Sun Jun 10 14:31:01 2012. But the MTA are a public authority providing a public utility and is not involved for profit and that means that if there is demand for such a service, then they have to provide it. |
|
|
| (1161270) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by davesgcr on Sun Jun 10 16:21:37 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 05:26:54 2012. This must represent the major turnaround in the Brooklyn "suburbs" over the last 20 years.Am I right in guessing the old , unmodernised "L" was one of the more dangerous lines ...? (from a public safety / crime point of view) |
|
|
| (1161291) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 18:08:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 14:25:06 2012. COOL.. |
|
|
| (1161293) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 18:11:49 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 05:26:54 2012. Ahhhhhhh...okay,now That answers the question why i've seen operators do what you described LEAVING 14TH/8TH...Thanks. |
|
|
| (1161294) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 10 18:16:01 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:16:11 2012. About 5 years ago when I had time on my hands I clocked the activity at 8th Ave during rush hour. The routine repeated itself on an 8 minute cycle, 2 trains coming in and leaving during that time period.For about 3 minutes out of every 8, nothing at all was happening. This suggests that if they really managed everything carefully, they could have two trains enter and leave every 5 minutes. |
|
|
| (1161311) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Jun 10 19:09:22 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 04:32:34 2012. When the transfer between Broadway Lafayette and the uptown 6 at Bleecker St goes into effect later this month (hopefully!), that will give M riders a further incentive to remain on their train instead of transferring to the L at Myrtle/Wycoff and then transferring again at Union Sq. |
|
|
| (1161315) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 19:55:08 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 15:44:20 2012. uh huh...that is true..BUT WE fought for certain services,and they have either denied it..or claimed they dont have the funding..or other various excuses..Look at the service cuts in bus service two years ago..many unbelievable! what money was saved..?Look at all the trouble it has caused to riders all across the city? You would think that the MTA was created to SERVE the riders..but they way its run..it seems more like a private corp..!Very top heavy! In any case..weekend M service would draw off plenty of L riders..even if they diverted the midtown crossing to 63rd st to cover the weekend G.O's..expand weekday late night service to midnight..sunday service to 10.. |
|
|
| (1161316) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 19:58:14 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 14:30:01 2012. additional car mileage..what kind of talk is that..? If the service is needed..why not run it? big expense or no..we pay for it! |
|
|
| (1161317) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 20:01:30 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 04:32:34 2012. To and Through Midtown..which makes it a better ride than the L line in the overall sense..More M SERVICE equals less crowding on the L line... |
|
|
| (1161325) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jun 10 20:41:55 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by davesgcr on Sun Jun 10 16:21:37 2012. You are correct! I rode it when it was the "16" and, later, the "LL". It ran over and under some pretty mean streets! |
|
|
| (1161327) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Q11-Woodhaven on Sun Jun 10 20:56:11 2012, in response to Increase in L train service, posted by Hart Bus on Fri Jun 8 10:24:49 2012. Which means a decrease in J service(which is also heavily used going thru neighborhoods that are being regentrified as well). |
|
|
| (1161329) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jun 10 21:22:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Q11-Woodhaven on Sun Jun 10 20:56:11 2012. Why do you say that? |
|
|
| (1161331) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 21:26:56 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Q11-Woodhaven on Sun Jun 10 20:56:11 2012. Proof? |
|
|
| (1161334) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jun 10 21:35:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Q11-Woodhaven on Sun Jun 10 20:56:11 2012. If you have some info that this increase in "L" service is going to affect the "J", please share it with us! The only thing that I heard was that this increase would cost the MTA about $1.7 million. |
|
|
| (1161351) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jun 10 22:52:44 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 04:32:34 2012. The graph of ridership for the L-train showed that L-train ridership continued to RISE even after the implementation of the current orange M-train.So why should improving M-train service result in less ridership or less crowding on the L-train? Could it be that while there may be some overlap in the ridership destinations for some riders, that there are plenty of riders who feel that they are best served by the L-train, regardless of whatever happens with the M-train? Any improvements at the Broadway-Lafayette station especially for uptown riders would not only affect M-train riders, but also riders for the various other lines, as well. Access to and about mid-town can be accomplished in many ways, and mid-town is a pretty big place. I have a friend that regularly travels from 14th Street-Union Square to Livonia Avenue. Now just how would improvements on the M-train help him? Plenty of riders have various origins and destinations. If the L-train needs improvements, why not just improve the L-train? If the M-train needs improvements, why not just improve the M-train? |
|
|
| (1161355) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Mon Jun 11 00:24:29 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jun 10 22:52:44 2012. You have to understand that there is a ridership overlap between the L and the M train and that the L might not have additional capacity. You see the ridershipbeing interchangeable when the M is sent to Midtown when there is construction on the L train. |
|
|
| (1161356) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 00:32:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 15:44:20 2012. No, it really doesn't mean that. The MTA certainly has to consider recovery ratios when planning services. Many of the lines cut in June 2010 were financially unsustainable. (That being said, some of the routes cut were arguably quite important locally and some were fairly efficient lines) |
|
|
| (1161362) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Mon Jun 11 01:04:29 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 00:32:42 2012. But the MTA is there to provide a public service. |
|
|
| (1161368) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 01:30:09 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Mon Jun 11 01:04:29 2012. Yes, and by providing cost effective services, they serve the most people. A bus driver on the QM1 is lucky if he moves 150 people in a day. A driver on the M15 would be having a bad day if he only moved 1500. The M15 driver is providing ten times the amount of people their transportation, yet doing so at a similar cost. If you have a choice between which route to fund, it is a no brainer. You keep the M15.Sure, the MTA could extend the M to Continental. In fact, I think ridership would justify it! But considering the fact that QB Will be getting a shit ton of CBTC work over the next decade, you'd end up paying all those M crews to sit around when their picked jobs get cancelled week after week. Nobody wins, except for the crews getting a working vacation. The money would better go to provide weekend service somewhere where it won't be cancelled every damn weekend. |
|
|
| (1161370) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 11 02:03:02 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 18:32:05 2012. ridiculous.. |
|
|
| (1161371) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jun 11 02:08:22 2012, in response to Increase in L train service, posted by Hart Bus on Fri Jun 8 10:24:49 2012. full use of those 64 R160's CARS..? |
|
|
| (1161374) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Mon Jun 11 03:02:29 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 01:30:09 2012. But there is construction in many parts of the Subway system. It is an old system. If you ran the M to 145th Street instead of 71st Avenue, I am sure there will be construction problems there as well. |
|
|
| (1161375) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jun 11 04:29:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 01:30:09 2012. When your job gets cancelled, you do not sit around, you get assigned to another line. |
|
|
| (1161379) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 11 07:35:49 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 15:44:20 2012. True...but the money has to be there...although they're not looking for a profit, there's only so much of a loss they can tolerate. |
|
|
| (1161380) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jun 11 07:38:34 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jun 11 04:29:05 2012. Good to know. |
|
|
| (1161389) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 11 08:02:19 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 06:31:39 2012. That is ridiculous but unfortunately true in our society where every group is on the lookout for things that they can claim, "offends" them. The renaming of the "YELLOW" line in Atlanta because it went through a predominantly Asian neighborhood comes to mind. |
|
|
| (1161395) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:10:59 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 01:30:09 2012. Crews getting a work vacation? You either don't know and is guessing or you have been misinformed..Yer Job is cancelled due to any reason you get reasdigned... Thanks for playing... |
|
|
| (1161402) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:22:47 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jun 11 04:29:05 2012. I know the potential exists for such, but if no additional service is being run... |
|
|
| (1161403) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:25:00 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:22:47 2012. "Knowing the potential" and saying "crews get a vacation" are two different things..Either you got something to back you up or you don't.. So which is it? |
|
|
| (1161404) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 11 08:25:21 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:22:47 2012. There are always people booking off for any number of reasons and there may not be enough "extra" people to fill all of the open jobs. |
|
|
| (1161405) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 11 08:26:04 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:25:00 2012. "Ducks for cover" |
|
|
| (1161407) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:31:59 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jun 11 08:26:04 2012. Yeah you know where this is going Steve cant stand folks like that..Saying things like that is how G2's get written down here and you know it.. |
|
|
| (1161408) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:34:22 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:25:00 2012. I don't entirely get what you are saying here. If there is a service cut for the weekend, of course you are going to need less crews. Some will be reassigned, but some will not. Back when the F-Euclid GO first started, some C crews ended up on the F, Some F crews ended up on the G, and a friend of mine, (I forget if he was C or F) ended up sitting around for the day, theoretically working as assigned, but no work came up. |
|
|
| (1161409) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:34:43 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:31:59 2012. *Correction cant stand things said like that* |
|
|
| (1161410) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:42:21 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:34:22 2012. Of course you dont get what im saying,i will be more than glad to help.(I forget if he was C or F) ended up sitting around for the day, theoretically working as assigned, but no work came up. If you would have said That right there its cool then.. You came across with This statement here.. Sure, the MTA could extend the M to Continental. In fact, I think ridership would justify it! But considering the fact that QB Will be getting a shit ton of CBTC work over the next decade, you'd end up paying all those M crews to sit around when their picked jobs get cancelled week after week. Nobody wins, except for the crews getting a working vacation. The money would better go to provide weekend service somewhere where it won't be cancelled every damn weekend. Your "friend" getting a break is ok and well but i can tell you this Its a rare event,(how long ago was it again when it first started?) you came across that every time this happens Crews Sit around. Thats not the case at all,when the M was cancelled last time all the T/O's Since the M is OPTO on the weekends got reassigned and did not sit around all day at all that i can tell you. Sometimes if you dont know the whole story sometimes its best not say anything. Thats my point. |
|
|
| (1161411) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:42:21 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:34:22 2012. Of course you dont get what im saying,i will be more than glad to help.(I forget if he was C or F) ended up sitting around for the day, theoretically working as assigned, but no work came up. If you would have said That right there its cool then.. You came across with This statement here.. Sure, the MTA could extend the M to Continental. In fact, I think ridership would justify it! But considering the fact that QB Will be getting a shit ton of CBTC work over the next decade, you'd end up paying all those M crews to sit around when their picked jobs get cancelled week after week. Nobody wins, except for the crews getting a working vacation. The money would better go to provide weekend service somewhere where it won't be cancelled every damn weekend. Your "friend" getting a break is ok and well but i can tell you this Its a rare event,(how long ago was it again when it first started?) you came across that every time this happens Crews Sit around. Thats not the case at all,when the M was cancelled last time all the T/O's Since the M is OPTO on the weekends got reassigned and did not sit around all day at all that i can tell you. Sometimes if you dont know the whole story sometimes its best not say anything. Thats my point. |
|
|
| (1161412) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:51:31 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:42:21 2012. Well, my point is, to get any terminology out of the way which might distract from it, if you schedule for a service which you aren't going to be able to run too often, which would require a decent amount of crews, you are more than likely to end up with more crews for which they don't find an assignment. You are certainly right that it isn't all, and I apologize for implying that all or even most crews end up without any work. |
|
|
| (1161413) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Jun 11 08:56:29 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by R30A on Mon Jun 11 08:51:31 2012. Thank you,No need to say sorry you got the point its cool!Im aware of that fact as well you cancel service someplace you dont need the personnel there you use them someplace else, thats smart Business it should be done this way. Thats why they train us the way they do when we start. |
|
|
| (1161416) | |
Re: MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Mr. D - Type on Mon Jun 11 09:24:11 2012, in response to MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 8 20:05:02 2012. Will additional equipment be required & if so, where will it come from ? |
|
|
| (1161418) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Q11-Woodhaven on Mon Jun 11 09:37:37 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Sun Jun 10 21:35:54 2012. Based merely on observationand logic,the extra equipment for those L are not coming from the M(its mainline being on 6th Ave.Plus I take the J frequently and noticed that lenghthof time between trains is more like 12-15 minutes more or less now than what suppose to be every 10 minutes(except for the one hour of skip stop service). |
|
|
| (1161462) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jun 11 14:31:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Mon Jun 11 00:24:29 2012. Ridership is interchangeable only if it's absolutely necessary or if there is an actual duplication of origin and destination. For example, a passenger boarding at Myrtle/Wyckoff and bound for 14/6 could use either the M when it's running to Manhattan or the L when the M s not. If the M is scheduled to run to Manhattan on weekends due to a disruption in L service, then passengers of course will make appropriate arrangements to use the M service which they would not ordinarily do if the L were running normally. |
|
|
| (1161510) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by mrw on Mon Jun 11 18:23:43 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Jun 8 10:28:32 2012. Where is the new equipment coming from the for the additional rush hour trains? Also, I understand that they could not run more trains during rush hour until this signaling upgrade was complete, but what prevented them from increasing off peak frequency earlier (was it just a budget thing)? |
|
|
| (1161901) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Thu Jun 14 22:14:13 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by VictorM on Sun Jun 10 19:09:22 2012. Where are the extra rush hour trains coming from? Converted R160's? |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
