|
|
| Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure (1392515) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (1392739) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Apr 18 12:13:28 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Apr 18 05:56:53 2016. There would be nothing wrong with keeping the M designation for both a Ctl service and an SAS service since the M letter belongs to the Myrtle. Bway Bkln service anyhow regardless of where it goes on the other end. Split terminals are currently used for the S/E lot the A line and the N/E of the #5 anyhow. Passengers just have to learn to READ the signs. |
|
|
| (1392744) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Apr 18 12:50:33 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 11:38:57 2016. You told me the current purpose of the center track. Not why a new purpose couldn't be established for that center track if NYCT decides that new purpose is worthwhile.Suppose NYCT decides it needs more M trains at 23rd Ely to meet demand in 2019 when the L shuts down. Which is cheaper? Figuring out a way of fumigating and relaying at Queens Plaza, or running trains all the way to 179th because there's no way of fumigating more Ms anywhere else. I don't know the answer. But you haven't explained why it can't possibly be cheaper to fumigate at Queens Plaza. |
|
|
| (1392748) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 18 13:03:57 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 18 00:01:34 2016. Hmmm...There was once upon where such accommodations would be scuffed at. Now,with times being what they are...people are bending over backwards. Isnt progress grand? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1392766) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 17:08:40 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Mon Apr 18 12:50:33 2016. Of course it would be cheaper to turn M trains at Queens Plaza should additional hours of service be established.If they decide to do this, that's on them because they would lose the track for emergencies. I'm just telling you what the use of that track is today: 5 PM Monday 4/18/16. If they use it they way you want them to use it in 2019 when the L line closes, in the words of Scarlet O'Hara, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" because I have no stake in it. So you and others can continue to advocate the above and we'll see who has the last laugh in 2019, of course if I'm still around. I'm done with this fantasy and you can have the "last word" because I'm done replying to this use of this trackage. |
|
|
| (1392774) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Apr 18 17:38:00 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 17:08:40 2016. Well, I'm certainly not going to have the last word. I'm just interested in what works. If someone says something doesn't work, I'm interested in knowing why. |
|
|
| (1392778) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Mon Apr 18 18:24:11 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 17:08:40 2016. it was Clark Gable who said, "frankly my dear, .....chud1. :)..... |
|
|
| (1392779) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by lirr42 on Mon Apr 18 18:36:54 2016, in response to Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 16 01:19:31 2016. FYI, the MTA announced today that the first of two public meetings to discuss future reconstruction work on the Canarsie Tunnel will be held on Thursday, May 5 at 6 p.m. at the Marcy Avenue Armory at 355 Marcy Avenue in Brooklyn. A Manhattan-based public meeting to be held later in May will be announced soon. |
|
|
| (1392785) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 19:15:38 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by chud1 on Mon Apr 18 18:24:11 2016. Yeah, OK, but idea sent. |
|
|
| (1392804) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 18 23:22:15 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 18 17:08:40 2016. Umm, Bill?Scarlett didn't say that famous line...but I do understand the reasons for that. Don't get bent out of shape over this...afterall,thats the WHOLE POINT of this discussion board. Even the most anal retentive of this place knows that. |
|
|
| (1392818) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:21:35 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Mon Apr 18 12:13:28 2016. That would be true going the other way (and I agree with you in this case). This would be a good case of people learning to pay attention.That said, too many people don't bother reading and fail to realize this. We have seen too much of that. As much as I would want to do it that way, I'm sure riders who live on the UES would want a different letter (why I would have the "Orange (T)" for SAS trains to Myrtle). And this is a service I would consider implementing well ahead of the (L) shutdown (most likely when the (M) returns to running to Myrtle full-time) as I think it would be an excellent supplement to the (Q) on the SAS as I think once the SAS opens, it will need it, especially outside of peak hours. |
|
|
| (1392820) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:38:23 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Apr 18 10:41:14 2016. Which is EXACTLY why (along with car shortages) I would split the (M) with half becoming "Orange (T)" trains to 96th Street and 2nd Avenue. Otherwise, you are likely looking at the (G) (M) and (R) trains ALL having to be extended to 179th Street because there is no other suitable place to turn the trains needed for this unless you want to make 71-Continental an even bigger conga line than it already is.The problem with using Queens Boulevard to terminating some (M) trains is ONE unruly passenger can back things up. |
|
|
| (1392821) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:39:47 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by lirr42 on Mon Apr 18 18:36:54 2016. And I'm sure there will be those who insist on the Manhattan portion of the (L) being kept operations between 1st and 8th Avenues. |
|
|
| (1392843) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 12:50:59 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:38:23 2016. The G turns at Court Square, and will continue to do so regardless of other lines. It is a nonissue. If Continental cannot turn the added Ms perhaps a few will have to be sent on to 179. Simple solutions are ideal. |
|
|
| (1392844) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Apr 19 13:16:22 2016, in response to Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 16 01:19:31 2016. I still think it would be a lot less disruptive (although it would of course take much longer) to have the work done only on weekends, and have normal service weekdays. They could easily increase weekend G service so most L passengers could transfer at Court Sq to the E or 7, or transfer at Hoyt to the A or C. |
|
|
| (1392846) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:20:15 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by VictorM on Tue Apr 19 13:16:22 2016. They discussed that, but you are looking at 7-10 years of shutdowns to do that. They are looking to do this like Montauge and hopefully get it done in 18 months or less. |
|
|
| (1392847) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 19 13:26:52 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:38:23 2016. Simple is as simple does.This is not the Old Days,brah. This NEW TA will NOT create new routes because it makes sense. They Will if it benefits THEIR BOTTOM LINE. The MV trade off wasnt service increase..it was a service cut. |
|
|
| (1392848) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Tue Apr 19 13:28:22 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:20:15 2016. I thought it would take 4 years or so to do it weekends. |
|
|
| (1392849) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:29:47 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 12:50:59 2016. Not in this case.It's better to split the (M) in two and have half of them, signed as an "Orange (T)" in this case going to 96th/2nd. This is in part because of not only needing in my opinion the (M) to go into Manhattan at all times during the shutdown, but also because in this case CBTC work on weekends along Queens Boulevard. The "Orange (T)" in this case would be a 24/7 line to 96th and 2nd operating 6-7 TPH at all times (as it would during peak hours be one-half of (M) service, just signed with a different letter), except for 3 TPH last nights. It would especially nights and weekends supplement the (Q) on the SAS along arguably one of the most densely populated areas of the entire country and also in doing so take pressure off the (6) since people on this train could instead of transferring at Broadway-Lafayette for the (6) can have a one-seat ride to the UES if going there (especially along 86th Street, still the CBD for Yorkville as well as 59th Street and not having to switch to the (6) at Broadway-Lafayette or by then the N/Q/R/W at Herald Square if going to 60th on 3rd or Lex). This is why I'd actually be looking to debut this new "Orange (T)" after the (M) goes back to operating to Metropolitan. |
|
|
| (1392850) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 13:33:57 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 19 13:26:52 2016. This NEW TA will NOT create new routes because it makes sense.They Will if it benefits THEIR BOTTOM LINE. They also need to move passengers. When they close the 14th Street tunnel they'll have to do something to move those passengers. We don't know what, but we can have fun speculating. |
|
|
| (1392851) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:40:56 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 19 13:26:52 2016. Right, but the M/V was something that we knew made sense.In this case, splitting the (M) into an (M) and (T) and having the (T) go to 96th and 2nd I think helps the MTA's bottom line because instead of having major traffic issues on the (M) on QB (including possibly having to extend the (M) and (R) to 179 if not also the (G) solely for the purpose of having people on the (G) transfer at Queens Boulevard), it also likely cuts down on the need for trainsets (especially important with the current car shortage) since you are not as likely to be dealing with conga lines at 96th/2nd as opposed to 71st-Continental or 179). If an "Orange (T)" can eliminate the need for the (M) and (R) to be extended to 179 (due to 71-Continental having too big of a conga line), then it's worth doing. Then there the fact you likely are going to have the (M) go into Manhattan anyway on weekends during the shutdown as I think pols will demand that with the (L) shut down. That likely means because of CBTC on QB the (M) would need a Manhattan terminal other than Essex anyway AND one that is 24/7 as opposed to the normal (M) schedule. That likely means 96th/2nd and with that you'd likely see UES residents demanding such be full-time, which is why I came up with that being full-time and trains to 96th/2nd being signed as (T) rather than (M) to avoid confusion. |
|
|
| (1392861) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Apr 19 15:28:34 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:29:47 2016. The problem with sending an orange T or M up the SAS is that once the L gets back to normal, it will probably be next to impossible to remove the service when it is no longer needed. |
|
|
| (1392862) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 15:39:06 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue Apr 19 15:28:34 2016. Nowhere near as big a problem as that it's 23rd-Ely that needs more M service when the L is shut down, and not 96th/2nd Ave. |
|
|
| (1392863) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 15:41:41 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by randyo on Tue Apr 19 15:28:34 2016. Except this is something that I think is needed anyway. Having a 6th Avenue in addition to Broadway option for the SAS I think will prove to be very viable, especially since it could be 20-30 years before the SAS reaches midtown and lower Manhattan. I suspect the "Orange (T)" would become popular in its own right and why I'd actually be starting it as soon as the (M) is back from the Myrtle closure. |
|
|
| (1392881) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 19 19:23:17 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 08:39:47 2016. They can "insist", but I see now way, no how. |
|
|
| (1392882) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 19:25:21 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 19 19:23:17 2016. Why not? Not because of vocal riders, but because 2 or 3 4-car trains shuttling back and forth are way cheaper than a dozen extra buses. |
|
|
| (1392886) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 19 19:31:14 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 19:25:21 2016. If both river tunnels are closed and tracks removed simultaneously, what do you do about car maintenance for a Manhattan shuttle ? |
|
|
| (1392900) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 19 21:33:48 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 13:40:56 2016. True...and you know as well as I do,that we lost service. |
|
|
| (1392909) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 22:48:31 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 19 19:31:14 2016. I think that is a decent part of why they will elect for the one tube at a time shutdown. |
|
|
| (1392914) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:21:49 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Joe V on Tue Apr 19 19:31:14 2016. Same thing you'll do about car maintenance for the M shuttle when it's isolated. |
|
|
| (1392915) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:23:27 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 22:48:31 2016. The trouble is that a 1-tube tunnel has far less than half the capacity of a 2-tube tunnel. So instead of getting 160 cars through in the peak hour, maybe you get 40. So now you have twice as many years without any kind of useful rush hour service. |
|
|
| (1392916) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 19 23:51:15 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:23:27 2016. The idea in this case is I think both tubes will be closed, but the tracks on one tube will need to remain available for non-electric train movement to do some of the work that would allow non-electric work trains to come in as needed to take cars for the Manhattan shuttle back and replacements brought in a on regularly scheduled basis during that period, allowing there to be a Manhattan (L) shuttle between 1st and 8th Avenues. |
|
|
| (1392917) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 23:59:59 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:23:27 2016. 30% capacity is better than 0% capacity! |
|
|
| (1392918) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Apr 20 00:01:31 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:21:49 2016. The M is having a temporary shop built. Can't really do that in the entirely subway L in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1392926) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 07:16:04 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by R30A on Wed Apr 20 00:01:31 2016. They wil likely also stick a lot more equipment in Fresh Pond yard than they need in case R160's have ailments their make-shift shop can't handle. They also have a large yard.The 14th Street line has only a siding. |
|
|
| (1392932) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 20 07:41:49 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 19 23:23:27 2016. So instead of getting 160 cars through in the peak hour, maybe you get 40.The one tube tph depends on service level used. They currently operate 20 tph in each direction simultaneously. If they operated 40 tph sequentially, they could nearly duplicate existing service levels over the hour. It's time the MTA showcased what CBTC can do. If CBTC isn't equal to the task, it should question the wisdom of continuing its installation. CBTC (or the lack of CBTC equipped rolling stock) has prevented operating the 14th St Line at its historic 24 tph peak service level. The MTA has not ordered sufficient CBTC rolling stock to operate the Flushing Line at its historic peak 36 tph service level. The MTA's CBTC rollout has not and will not increased service levels but frozen them at current levels. |
|
|
| (1392934) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 08:41:11 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by R30A on Tue Apr 19 23:59:59 2016. Really? 30% capacity for 2 years is better than 0% capacity for 1 year and 100% capacity for 1 year?Merchants who rely on Manhattan visitors in the off hours will agree with you. I'm not convinced commuters will. |
|
|
| (1392935) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:45:17 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 19 21:33:48 2016. On weekends, I think there is more of a market need to send the M to Forest Hills than 96th Street. The R sucks, and I think the SAS is over-rated. |
|
|
| (1392937) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 08:47:20 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 20 07:41:49 2016. If they operated 40 tph sequentially, they could nearly duplicate existing service levels over the hour.They can't quite store 20 trains in Manhattan. But say they can do 16 trains leaving Bedford between 8 AM and 8:30 AM. Great. Now there is no service from 8:30 until roughly 9:15. There are huge numbers of L train riders in that time period too. NYCT can't efficiently handle those kinds of crowds queueing up waiting for the next batch of trains. |
|
|
| (1392938) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 08:49:26 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by R30A on Wed Apr 20 00:01:31 2016. Wally may have the answer.The tracks are a small portion of the tunnel work. it's quite plausible that an unpowered track would be available from time to time to take a car to the shop. |
|
|
| (1392939) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:49:50 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 20 07:41:49 2016. I too think CBTC has been a fraud and a disruptive fiasco.What would it have cost to simply retrofit stations and existing signal system on the Flushing Line for 12 car trains, 9% boost in capacity without touching trains per hour ? I'd imagine Main Street would have been expensive. |
|
|
| (1392940) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:56:29 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 08:49:26 2016. I think they'll just boost M14 service, charge it to the capital budget, and call it a day.If you use equipment running a Manhattan L, less or no more R160's available to run more M's, and they'll need plenty of those. |
|
|
| (1392941) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 09:08:57 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:56:29 2016. I think they'll just boost M14 service, charge it to the capital budget, and call it a day.Maybe so. We'll see. A shuttle would only take 12 cars: 2 4-car trains and 1 spare train. Probably a matter of who squeals loudest in NYCT. 14th Street traffic can be miserable. It can take 10 minutes or more for a bus to make it from 5th Ave to 3rd Ave. |
|
|
| (1392942) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 09:13:29 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 09:08:57 2016. They can also run 6 car R32's, each back and forth on its own track. If one car gets flat wheels, 2 cars rather than 4 need be pulled out. |
|
|
| (1392952) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 20 14:46:28 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 08:47:20 2016. NYCT can't efficiently handle those kinds of crowds queueing up waiting for the next batch of trains.It's about time they learned. |
|
|
| (1392953) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Apr 20 14:46:58 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:45:17 2016. I agree fully.The M should operate as far as 179th st PERIOD,19/7. |
|
|
| (1392955) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Apr 20 14:55:17 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Apr 20 14:46:28 2016. Certainly. |
|
|
| (1392956) | |
Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019 |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Wed Apr 20 15:00:39 2016, in response to Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Apr 16 01:19:31 2016. Never heard of a station called Bedford Street... |
|
|
| (1392958) | |
Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 20 15:35:44 2016, in response to Re: (M) train during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 08:45:17 2016. Understandable, however, there is a little matter known as CBTC, which is why I thought of the split in the first place since the current (M) is going to need a weekend terminal in Manhattan that is NOT Essex or anywhere on Nassau then and CBTC is more weekends than not make it impossible for the (M) to run with the (E) (F) and (R) are all are running local in one or both directions and/or access to Jamaica Yard is limited by CBTC work. In addition, I don't think QB can handle more locals to 71-Continental anyway and sending it to 179 brings trainset availability more into being issue.That is why I came up with 96th/2nd in the first place as a weekend terminal. Since it was noted that those on the UES would probably insist on making it full-time, that's when I did the split with half the trains signed as (T) and those being 24/7 to 96th/2nd (6-7 TPH except overnights when it would be 3 TPH). Given the density of population on the UES, having both the (Q) and an "Orange (T)" operate on 6th Avenue I think is actually more important than Queens Boulevard. Doing such also likely reduces the number of trainsets actually needed for a split M/T, which may be important. |
|
|
| (1392960) | |
Re: 14th Street Shuttle during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 20 15:55:28 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by AlM on Wed Apr 20 09:08:57 2016. Which is exactly why I would keep the Manhattan portion open and run a 1st-8th Avenue shuttle:It would be most likely 20 cars that would be needed: Three four-car sets running at all times (1 or 2 sets late nights) and two spares. When only one set is in use, two sets can be stored on whatever side of 1st Avenue is not in use for revenue service (1st and 3rd Avenues would be single-tracked at all times as the crossover is just west of 3rd Avenue unless an addition crossover can be built east of 1st Avenue) and the other two can be stored on the lay-up track. That to me makes sense. |
|
|
| (1392961) | |
Re: 14th Street Shuttle during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Apr 20 15:57:11 2016, in response to Re: Brooklyn-Manhattan tunnels on (L) train to close in 2019, posted by Joe V on Wed Apr 20 09:13:29 2016. That does make sense as well OR make 1st-Union Square an absolute block and single-track at 1st and 3rd Avenues. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
