Home ∑ Maps ∑ About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3]

 

Page 1 of 3

Next Page >  

(1499297)

view threaded

Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019

According to randyo crew facilities were added at Far Rockaway and Dyre. Why wasn't this done at Norwood?

Post a New Response

(1499300)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 12:28:23 2019, in response to Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019.

And it's time consuming for the passengers, because it means that southbound trains have an otherwise unnecessary delay for a change of crew at Bedford Park Blvd.




Post a New Response

(1499357)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jan 8 17:08:26 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 12:28:23 2019.

That is not a delay. It is the SCHEDULED Start place for the (D) train.

205th was never supposed to be the end of the lion, it was supposed to go beyond there, but then the city took the Dyre and plans changed.

RIAR

Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1499367)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 8 17:24:34 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jan 8 17:08:26 2019.

Officially the start place for the D is 205 St regardless of where the crews change. When I was a M/M and later on when I became a T/D, there were some crews that signed on at 205 and went through to Brighton Bch.

Post a New Response

(1499370)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 8 17:29:05 2019, in response to Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019.

Since 205 was originally intended to be a through station and not a terminal, no crew facilities were provided. I Havenít been up to that part of the world in a long time so Iím not sure if there would even be enough room to place a crew room where the old tower used to be now that the interlocking machine has been removed. Unlike Dyre and Far Rock which are above ground, there would be no space to put a crew room at 205 unless the old tower could be used.

Post a New Response

(1499380)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 18:09:53 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 8 17:29:05 2019.

There seems to be a closed off area between the platforms and the mezzanine to the right of staircases at the western end of the platform behind a door. I don't know what is behind there.

Post a New Response

(1499381)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 18:16:50 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 12:28:23 2019.

Apparently, you do not understand the difference between a delay and a scheduled start time. That's okay with Hough. It must be really difficult for you.

Post a New Response

(1499383)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 8 18:18:45 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 12:28:23 2019.

The change of crews at Bedford Park is built into the schedule.

Post a New Response

(1499385)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 18:25:05 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 8 17:29:05 2019.

The topography would make it extremely disruptive to the surrounding community for no reasonable benefit.

Post a New Response

(1499390)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 19:11:11 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 8 18:18:45 2019.

Of course. But it makes it take a few minutes longer for every passenger to get from 205th to points south, on every single train, for many decades. Its being in the schedule doesn't make it less inconvenient for passengers.





Post a New Response

(1499423)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 04:04:35 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 18:09:53 2019.

It used to be the car inspectorís office and not big enough for a crew room.

Post a New Response

(1499425)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 04:09:47 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 19:11:11 2019.

Itís been that way for so long the passengers donít even know the difference.

Post a New Response

(1499444)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:15:18 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 04:09:47 2019.

What is all this crap?

Passengers know very well that every day they have to wait a couple of minutes at BPB. They don't care that it's built into the schedule. They just know that they sit while the train goes nowhere. Why is that so hard for people to understand?



Post a New Response

(1499445)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:16:47 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jan 8 17:08:26 2019.

It is the SCHEDULED

I'm talking about the passengers. They don't care that it's built into the schedule. They see a delay.






Post a New Response

(1499450)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 11:37:34 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:15:18 2019.

You are absolutely correct.

Post a New Response

(1499456)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 11:42:42 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:16:47 2019.

Yeah... All five pax that get on at 205.

ROAR

Post a New Response

(1499460)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 12:04:34 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 11:42:42 2019.

How would you know?

Post a New Response

(1499462)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 12:08:02 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 11:42:42 2019.

Annual 2017 ridership at 205th - 2,723,506

Annual 2017 ridership at Bedford Park - 2,220,298

Post a New Response

(1499472)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 13:33:41 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 12:04:34 2019.

THE LION is here to stir the pot.



Post a New Response

(1499474)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 13:39:44 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 13:33:41 2019.

They lyin' lion.

Post a New Response

(1499475)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 13:40:18 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 13:33:41 2019.

THE lyin' lion.

Post a New Response

(1499476)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 13:47:19 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 12:08:02 2019.

But lion says itís only 5 x 365.



Post a New Response

(1499479)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 9 14:12:34 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:15:18 2019.

A few years ago we had this same discussion and it is being rehashed all over again. I'm not getting into it except for this one response.

There is a scheduled one minute hold for the crews to be relieved at Bedford Park. It has been that way for as long as I remember, even going back to the R1/9's when I was a kid. You may not like it, but it is what it is. The passengers from 205 are well used to this hold by now. This is because there are no crew facilities at 205. Why? IDK, the planners are all dead!


Amen, I'm done!

Post a New Response

(1499487)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 15:09:04 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 13:47:19 2019.

Lyin' lion.

Post a New Response

(1499491)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 15:28:20 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 9 14:12:34 2019.

You may not like it, but it is what it is.

My only point has been that passengers would benefit if crew facilities were installed at 205th. Maybe it's impossible. If so, then so be it.

But that hasn't been the response I got. The response I got from various people here is that it's not an issue because it's in the schedule, so I'm stupid for even bringing it up. And that's simply a "the passenger comes last" attitude.





Post a New Response

(1499494)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 15:34:55 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 15:28:20 2019.

I agree.

Post a New Response

(1499495)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Wed Jan 9 15:35:36 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 15:28:20 2019.

SCREW THE DAMN PASSENGERS!!! What do they want for their lousy $2.75...to live forever???!

-- What Frank Byrell would say if Pelham 1-2-3 (original version) was made now.

Post a New Response

(1499498)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 9 15:59:32 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 9 14:12:34 2019.

Back when I was still working over 20 years ago, there was a 4 min hold built into the N schedules at Dekalb because the N had to meet at Qnsbro Plz with the 7 and again at Dekalb with the D which at that time was operating via the Brighton Line.

Post a New Response

(1499507)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 16:26:20 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 12:08:02 2019.

OK, do it is not four people per train, it is 17.2723 people per train.

BIG DEAL

[18 tph x 24 = 432 TPD x 365 = 157280 TPY]
2723506 PAX/Y / 1572880 TPY = 17.27236174530695 pax per train

ROARING!

Post a New Response

(1499510)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by FtGreeneG on Wed Jan 9 16:28:08 2019, in response to Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019.

Don't have a positive answer pure speculation but I would be almost certain it was a combination of space and $$$.

Bedford Pk has ample space. There's literally 3 crew rooms at the Bed Pk sta. 1. Crew quarters platform level,
2. Crew quarters upstairs with a kitchen (a locker room across hall)
3. A crew room in the area where the master tower is (Think thats more for the tower folk) with another locker room

205 st just dont have a lot of space. There's a small area behind the tower board. Can probably sit about 6 ppl and a bathroom. Don't seem like much room to expand.

Of course with all of that at Bed Pk why would mta send the $$$ to build one at 205 st which probably involve knocking down walls complicated construction?

Post a New Response

(1499514)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 16:36:46 2019, in response to Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019.

Norwood?

What the heck is Norwood?

Ain't no Norwood

The place is called 205th Street.
Always has been always will be.

205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street
205th Street

205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street
205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street 205th Street


Got it?

ROAR


Post a New Response

(1499517)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 16:39:49 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 16:26:20 2019.

You overestimated the number of trains per day by a factor of 4

And of course in busier periods it's far more than 68 people.

(2.7 million people) x (2 minutes each) = 90,000 person-hours per year.

Maybe it would be so expensive to put in crew quarters that it's not worth it for that amount of time savings. But nobody here has made that argument.




Post a New Response

(1499521)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 17:04:14 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 16:39:49 2019.

Lyin' lion.

Post a New Response

(1499524)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 17:10:00 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 9 16:36:46 2019.

Lyin' lion.

Post a New Response

(1499530)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by chud1 on Wed Jan 9 18:11:27 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 9 13:39:44 2019.

i live in woodlawn heights. when i worked in manhattan i took the bx 34 bus to 205th street and bainbridge ave.
if broadway lion looks at a bronx map its called norwood.
i am a 4th generation bronxite.
chud1.
:).....

Post a New Response

(1499552)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Jan 9 19:46:19 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:15:18 2019.

Subway riders generally don't consult schedules to plan their trips anyway, unless perhaps they are the much-abused late night and overnight riders who have to make sure that they don't miss an important connection.

Post a New Response

(1499585)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 10 10:21:38 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by chud1 on Wed Jan 9 18:11:27 2019.

Bronxite.... Don't they make aluminum out of Bronxite?

ROAR

Post a New Response

(1499592)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 10 11:55:58 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Jan 9 19:46:19 2019.

What's your point? You don't need to consult a schedule to know your train sits at Bedford Park every day for no apparent reason.

Post a New Response

(1499603)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by chud1 on Thu Jan 10 14:00:47 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 10 10:21:38 2019.

4th generation bronx guy. did u look at a bronx map like i requested.
chud1.


Post a New Response

(1499605)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Thu Jan 10 14:22:39 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 10 10:21:38 2019.

No, Bauxite.

MEOW.

Post a New Response

(1499623)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 15:47:03 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 10 11:55:58 2019.

"No apparent reason".

Yes apparent reason. It sits there for one minute for the crew change.

It would make zero fiscal sense to have 2 crew rooms at 2 consecutive stations.

Post a New Response

(1499630)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 10 16:54:07 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 15:47:03 2019.

"It would make zero fiscal sense to have 2 crew rooms at 2 consecutive stations."

No one is suggesting that. If you had the crew room at 205th, the nominal terminal, you would eliminate the one at BPB.

The fact is that, solely for a no longer relevant historical reason, there is a crew room at a stop that is not a terminal - the only line in the city where such an arrangement occurs. It is stupid. That said, it may not be worth spending money to fix.

Post a New Response

(1499632)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 10 17:00:39 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 10 16:54:07 2019.

Bedford Park is the terminal of the B in rush hours.

Post a New Response

(1499633)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by r17-6599 on Thu Jan 10 17:02:14 2019, in response to Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Union Tpke on Tue Jan 8 12:16:31 2019.

If I may jump in. I get on at B'ford Pk. Most trains have acrew change; many people, including myself, expect it, and don't rush down the stairs if a train is just coming in as I arrive. However, there are a few trains that do not do this and come in and go right out. My question in why? If this odd-train can do that why not all. Does this crew have exceptionally large bladders, or they just don't deserve a break? And, the delay is often times more than just a minute.
Back in the day, when those starting lights went on, that crew was on board and out that train went. Today, those light are no more than just decorations.
R17

Post a New Response

(1499634)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Jsun21 on Thu Jan 10 17:05:40 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by r17-6599 on Thu Jan 10 17:02:14 2019.

These trains were likely put in from Concourse that just turned at 205, so that crew is expected to run straight through.

Post a New Response

(1499636)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by r17-6599 on Thu Jan 10 17:13:09 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by Jsun21 on Thu Jan 10 17:05:40 2019.

OK, makes sense. Of course there are still trains out of CCY that enter Bedford Pk directly.
In the a.m. rush, there are some strange happenings at Bedford Pk. Like a n/b (D) train arriving and becoming a s/b (D)exp. Mad rush up the stairs & over to the other side.
Great way to start the day. Better than coffee.
R17

Post a New Response

(1499637)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Jsun21 on Thu Jan 10 17:40:47 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 10 16:54:07 2019.

Bedford Park was/is the intended terminal for the Concourse Local. The line was supposed to end entirely at Bedford Park but a last minute addition was 205th in anticipation of Eastward expansion, but like so many things our Transit Ancestors planned, it didn't pan out. So we are left with this obtuse arrangement.

Post a New Response

(1499638)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by FtgreeneG on Thu Jan 10 17:45:11 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 9 10:15:18 2019.

I agree but financially the question is is that 1 or 2 minute scheduled hold at BPK worth the serious $$$ spent in building a crew room at 205th. Like I said in a previous post not a lot of space at 205th Sta which means construction of a crew room will involve knocking down some walls possibly moving some utlities around long story short...serious $$$. Is that expense worth it when there's more than enough ample crew space 1 Sta away?

Post a New Response

(1499640)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 10 17:52:55 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by FtgreeneG on Thu Jan 10 17:45:11 2019.

The cost of no crew room is decades and decades of many people's ride taking an extra minute or two.

I have no idea what the cost of adding the crew room is. Maybe it's not worth it; if so, fine. I only object to people who deride the idea that the ongoing cost to passengers exists or matters.



Post a New Response

(1499652)

view threaded

Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?

Posted by Jsun21 on Thu Jan 10 20:27:24 2019, in response to Re: Why weren't crew facilities added at Norwood?, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 10 17:52:55 2019.

Its kind of like that magazine fact where you spend 18yrs on the toilet.

If you accumulate it, it sounds like a lot when you state it cumulatively, but the fact of the matter is that it is a small amount of time when analyzed on the event level. Also there is no way to accumulate this time, saving 100 seconds a day doesn't get paid out as 608 minutes at the end of the year. You only save 100 seconds, 365 times, which does not have any tangible benefit.

Post a New Response

[1 2 3]

 

Page 1 of 3

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]