Page 1 of 2 12>
Topic Options
#424228 - 05/30/08 11:42 PM Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s)
R445377 Offline
Straphanger
**

Registered: 10/25/07
Posts: 172
Loc: NJ
On the current slate, the N and Q are to have the R160A/Bs while the B and D would have the R68/As within the next few years. Based past experience, the only reason that caused the Manhattan Bridge to close one subway line is due to heavy subway cars swaying and damaging the structure. The R160A/Bs are among the lighter cars of the division and are currently planned to be assigned to the south tracks of the Manhattan Bridge. The R68/As on the other hand are the heaviest of the division and are currently planned to be assigned to the north tracks of the Manhattan. As concluded, is MTA repeating history based on their planned actions?
_________________________
Long Live The R44s/R38s

Top
#424468 - 06/01/08 08:02 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R445377]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
I think you got it wrong, someone said the R160's are actually pretty heavy and will probably balance the bridge with the R68's on the north side.
Top
#424479 - 06/01/08 08:33 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R445377]
Lex Express Online   content
Lord of the Post
**

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 17080
Loc: Springfield Gardens, Queens
No, the problem with the Manhattan Bridge was that the heaviest load, the subway, was on the outer edge while the lighest load, traffic, was the inner roadway. This led to deflection. Whenever the train passed on the north side the bridge would tilt north. The same thing happened on the south side. However, the bridge was reconstructed. This is no longer a problem.
_________________________
"This stop is Silver Spring. Red Line to Glenmont. Next stop is Forest Glen".

Top
#424491 - 06/01/08 09:20 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Lex Express]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
Well of course, 17 years of only 6th av side service would seriously cause the bridge to sag on one side. I'm just saying the R160's are among the heaviest cars which would almost equal the weight of the R68/a's.
It might not be a problem if you ran more service on one side [Q/N runs 7 days a week vs the B at only 5 and D at 7 days], but eventually you need a balance of trains so the bridge won't have the problems again in the future.

Top
#424509 - 06/01/08 10:38 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Grand Concourse]
Jamal BK3 Offline
Bus Driver
***

Registered: 06/22/05
Posts: 368
Loc: In the hinterlands of Brooklyn
I wonder how services would be changed if the structure of the Manhattan Bridge had to be reconstructed again?
_________________________
207th Street to Broadway-East NY
8th Avenue/CPW Express, Fulton Local
1946-1948

Top
#424512 - 06/01/08 10:57 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Jamal BK3]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
Since the recent change involved the 6th av side, the next shut down would be the Broadway side, I would guess.
Then the Q would have to be shifted back to 6th Av probably [the Q would then probably eliminate the V so it can continue to Queens local or express, since it can't stop at 57th-6th Av] and the N back on the local tracks and the W eliminated.

Top
#424513 - 06/01/08 11:07 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Grand Concourse]
R-7 SEPTA Local Offline
Lord of the Post
**

Registered: 10/13/04
Posts: 10621
Loc: Hudson River Valley, NY, USA o...
 Originally Posted By: Grand Concourse
Since the recent change involved the 6th av side, the next shut down would be the Broadway side, I would guess.
Then the Q would have to be shifted back to 6th Av probably [the Q would then probably eliminate the V so it can continue to Queens local or express, since it can't stop at 57th-6th Av] and the N back on the local tracks and the W eliminated.


Hopefully not for a long while (at least 15 years from now)other than the usual 1-2 weekends a year for 'inspection' on both sides of the bridge.

Top
#424553 - 06/02/08 01:14 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R-7 SEPTA Local]
Brighton Line Moderator Offline
Federal Transit Administration Rep.
***

Registered: 02/16/01
Posts: 5517
Loc: Brooklyn,NY, US
The entire rebuild of the Manhattan bridge has gotten rid of the problem PERIOD. Yah it took YEARS but it is no longer a design issue of the bridge, you can run 6 work engines in a row on one side for a year and it is not an issue.
_________________________
Brighton Line
Still can't find the "Any Key" on my keyboard. I can't continue.

Top
#425359 - 06/07/08 01:33 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Brighton Line]
R445377 Offline
Straphanger
**

Registered: 10/25/07
Posts: 172
Loc: NJ
I hope so. I always thought that the R160s weighed about the same as the R44/46s.
_________________________
Long Live The R44s/R38s

Top
#425499 - 06/08/08 11:12 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R445377]
R62A 2012 Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 11/06/02
Posts: 11121
Loc: NJ
It took 16 years (1988-2004) but the reconstruction of the bridge paid off.
_________________________
The R36
Celebrating 40 years on land and at sea
1964-2004

Top
#425924 - 06/12/08 02:40 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R62A 2012]
A-train Offline
Bus Dispatcher
***

Registered: 04/09/06
Posts: 542
Loc: Queens
If the Bway side of bridge is closed, NQR might run loc between dekalb and canal. Q would probably run exp between canal - 57St. N/R stay loc in Manhattan, W suspended.
Top
#426750 - 06/16/08 08:50 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: A-train]
Green_over_Green Offline
Tourist
***

Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 7
Unless two trains of the same weight were running at exactly the same time and parallel to each other (one north side, one south, running in the same direction), there is always an unbalanced load on the bridge. That's what the repairs have addressed.
Top
#427593 - 06/22/08 02:28 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R62A 2012]
MoOnMaN319 Moderator Offline
Author on Strapping
*

Registered: 07/16/03
Posts: 7340
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
I remember taking the first D back over the bridge to Coney Island on 2/22/04.
_________________________
"Don't regret the things you do. Only regret the things you haven't done."

Top
#428102 - 06/25/08 04:55 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: A-train]
Eric B Offline
Straphanger
***

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 266
 Originally Posted By: A-train
If the Bway side of bridge is closed, NQR might run loc between dekalb and canal. Q would probably run exp between canal - 57St. N/R stay loc in Manhattan, W suspended.
But then they wouldn't be able to run the M through either.

It's an interesting question of what they would do if Bway side closes again. If the 6th Ave. side closes, they could just go back to the last pattern and basically merge the D back with the W. (Perhaps keep that in the tunnel, and the N on the bridge).

But there was one important change on the 6th Ave. side while the bridge was closed on that side, and that was the 63rd St. connection.

So they only thing I could see them do is merge the Q and the V. That was basicallyt he old plan when the Bway side was closed all those years, and the Q seemed fixed to 6th Ave. for good. The difference would be that the Q/V would have to be on 63rd, while the F goes back to 53rd. Otherwise, you would have to cross them over each other. The Q is full time now, so perhaps it would go to Continental all times. (and hence fulfill the plan to run the R 24 hours, as well as replace the G on weekends). O maybe they would cut it off at 21st off hours. But this would be temporary, and may create a demand for the service to remain (then maybe the V or R would run longer).

Then, you have the issue of what happens if the V were extended to Brooklyn (or merged with the J or M, which I see as very unlikely for weekdays). Unless the extended V were curtailed, they might have to run both the F, Q and V together, with the F and V the same, but the Q merging from the express at 47/50, and then with the R and V at 36th. They did consider the three locals with the G before the final 63rd St plan went into effect, and ruled it out, but unline the G, which they see as a less important line (to theutter dismay of its riders), the Q is a major Manhattan-Brooklyn line and would need to run somewhere, and this would be an emergency anyway. Besides, when they run more lines on the same track like that, they slightly increase the headway of each line to fit. As for the terminal, they might run it all the way to 179 (which was basically the old Manhattan Bridge Alternatives plans with the Q going through to Queens whether the bridge was fully open, northside only open, or any pattern with DeKalb-Rutgers connection built.

Now, when 2nd Ave. opens up, 72nd St. will have a middle track, but it won't be free until the downtown track is completed when the line below 63rd opens, so it's way off. But the planners were thinking of it in terms of future Manhattan Bridge service change patterns when they said it would be used for the north side being closed, with the additional Bway service. So Probably the Q circle would continue going uptown, and the diamond would use the middle track. (I of course wish they would use it for K service to the Eastern Div.) But you could also access the 2nd Av line from 6th Ave. by crossing over at Lex/63rd. So with south side closed, the Q would just merge with the F a 47th, but then merge back out at Lex, and then continue uptown.


Edited by Eric B (06/25/08 04:55 PM)

Top
#428105 - 06/25/08 05:11 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Eric B]
R32_3348 Online   happy
NYC Council Transportation Committee Chairperson
****

Registered: 03/25/07
Posts: 2245
Loc: Jackson Heights
 Originally Posted By: Eric B
Now, when 2nd Ave. opens up, 72nd St. will have a middle track, but it won't be free until the downtown track is completed when the line below 63rd opens, so it's way off.

Not anymore...


Edited by R32_3348 (06/25/08 05:12 PM)
_________________________
Photobucket
-R160B8713 on NYCTForums

Top
#428112 - 06/25/08 05:44 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: R32_3348]
EE Broadway Local Offline
Federal Transit Administration Rep.
**

Registered: 11/28/06
Posts: 5156
Loc: Ariz. by way of N.J. & N.Y.
72d Street is being changed to a smaller two track center island platform and the 63d Street connection has been simplified to save money.
_________________________
E.......is for Elizabeth!

Top
#428230 - 06/26/08 04:42 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Eric B]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
 Originally Posted By: Eric B
It's an interesting question of what they would do if Bway side closes again. If the 6th Ave. side closes, they could just go back to the last pattern and basically merge the D back with the W. (Perhaps keep that in the tunnel, and the N on the bridge).

I agree, if the W runs to West end, rather than to put the N back in the tunnel, they should leave the N as is and have the W run local in Manhattan and then express in Brooklyn so N service remains the same. I really don't mind the <Q> thing since the express Q and local Q shares the same line up to Brighton Beach.

Top
#428274 - 06/26/08 09:24 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: EE Broadway Local]
Eric B Offline
Straphanger
***

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 266
 Originally Posted By: EE Broadway Local
72d Street is being changed to a smaller two track center island platform and the 63d Street connection has been simplified to save money.

Yeah; so NOW what would they do? (especially with the North Side closed aftyer both the T and Q are running uptown. And are they going to go and trim down 125th like that, while they're at it? For the south side closed, the Q could still switch over from 6th Av).
They would have to end up cutting something out, perhaps even using the M to replace something in Brooklyn. That was a dumb move. They're only thinking about the moment.

Top
#428279 - 06/26/08 09:42 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Eric B]
EE Broadway Local Offline
Federal Transit Administration Rep.
**

Registered: 11/28/06
Posts: 5156
Loc: Ariz. by way of N.J. & N.Y.
Eric; 1) Let's pray the SAS gets built and 2) Let's pray the Manny B. never closes for twenty years again.
_________________________
E.......is for Elizabeth!

Top
#428361 - 06/27/08 11:49 AM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: EE Broadway Local]
Eric B Offline
Straphanger
***

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 266
Still reducing flexibility and making it difficult to ever have a midtown terminal for an ENY based line.
Top
#428367 - 06/27/08 01:11 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Eric B]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
What is so hard about just merging the M and V lines? I mean it's not like the V will be gone forever. The combined line would be an orange M and the V can be recycled for maybe an express F in Queens and Brooklyn, sort of like a <F>.
This way you don't need a midtown terminal for an ENY line as it will go thru Queens instead.

Top
#429023 - 07/01/08 09:11 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Grand Concourse]
Eric B Offline
Straphanger
***

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 266
Again, merging the M and V (at least on weekdays) requires the V to go to 8 car trains, and for some of them to be stored in Jamaica, where they would be this foreign fleet that could not be used any any other line there.
All of this is possible, but still is less operationally convenient than the current service. They are still hoping ridership will pick up on the V, so they are not going to go and reduce capacity on the busiest line in the system.

Top
#429095 - 07/02/08 05:42 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Eric B]
Grand Concourse Offline
Lord of the Post
***

Registered: 06/26/02
Posts: 18258
Loc: Manhattan
The V is hardly crowded and can afford to be trimmed by 120' feet and run 8-car R32 or R42, maybe even the R160A cars. As I have stated before, they can always give the extra cars back to the G. Heck make the G 8-car R46 trains if Jamaica yard can't fit the unused cars.
An M-V combo would be better than what is running now.


Edited by Grand Concourse (07/02/08 05:42 PM)

Top
#429133 - 07/02/08 09:28 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Grand Concourse]
Eric B Offline
Straphanger
***

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 266
I just don't see them scaling back trains on the Queens corridor. You have to understand the way the TA thinks. When they think something won't work, then they rule it out, unless there is really a lot of demand for it, and then they determine it is efficient. Again, it's not crowded now, but they're looking at would could happen in the future.
Top
#429328 - 07/03/08 11:43 PM Re: Imbalance on the Manhattan Bridge (R160s vs R68s) [Re: Grand Concourse]
R445377 Offline
Straphanger
**

Registered: 10/25/07
Posts: 172
Loc: NJ
If you read on wikipedia, the R160s are actually lighter than the R46s and a little heavier than the R44s. This a definite imbalance. I guess should one side of the bridge close, it would most likely be the 6th Avenue side.
_________________________
Long Live The R44s/R38s

Top
Page 1 of 2 12>


Moderator:  Brighton Line, MoOnMaN319 
Hop to:
Search
Newest Members
Q46toLIJ, listener, AllyinNYC, MissOphelia, bsmith
3378 Registered Users
Who's Online
10 registered (johnnelson, R32_3348, mta36, TheGreatOne2k7, Q113LTD, Lex Express) and 59 anonymous users online.
Shout Box

Forum Stats
3378 Members
20 Forums
23385 Topics
447894 Posts

Max Online: 464 @ 04/24/08 01:14 PM