Comments on: The G Train: Not Perfect, But Closer http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/ A New York City Subway Blog Sat, 26 May 2012 00:19:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: triboro http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-68358 triboro Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:43:18 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-68358 No problem. N is not using the express track. The TRX can use the express tracks. No problem. N is not using the express track. The TRX can use the express tracks.

]]> By: Jon http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63368 Jon Sat, 08 Aug 2009 22:40:38 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63368 That's the sh!t track, right? I used to live on E 8th street and Ave. I, and those tracks were right next door. Every morning and night one train would pass those tracks. The morning car had garbage from Long Island, and the afternoon one had contents unknown. I used to play football with friends on those tracks often. I always wondered why they never used the track for something useful (like a subway). Then Google Earth came out, and I was even more perplexed! The whole route is so configurable! It literally connects to the L train, the LIRR, E/F trains, and goes to the Bronx! Sure they have to electify the tracks and add a 2nd track for 2 directions, but that can't be even close to the expenditures of the 2nd Ave Subway. And the distance of the route! Also buses like the B11 and the B6 may not have to exist, which would releive some bus expenditures. But there are problems. The N train seems to run on the same track from New Utretch onwards unless Google deceives me. That’s the sh!t track, right? I used to live on E 8th street and Ave. I, and those tracks were right next door. Every morning and night one train would pass those tracks. The morning car had garbage from Long Island, and the afternoon one had contents unknown. I used to play football with friends on those tracks often. I always wondered why they never used the track for something useful (like a subway). Then Google Earth came out, and I was even more perplexed! The whole route is so configurable! It literally connects to the L train, the LIRR, E/F trains, and goes to the Bronx! Sure they have to electify the tracks and add a 2nd track for 2 directions, but that can’t be even close to the expenditures of the 2nd Ave Subway. And the distance of the route! Also buses like the B11 and the B6 may not have to exist, which would releive some bus expenditures.

But there are problems. The N train seems to run on the same track from New Utretch onwards unless Google deceives me.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63116 Alon Levy Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:49:19 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63116 The time to complain about the G was when it was on the drawing board in the 1920s. The IND chose to make the route incompatible with the existing lines, with no transfer to Atlantic/Pacific, Borough Hall, Hunters Point, or Queensboro Plaza. If you want good crosstown service, ask the MTA to allocate more resources toward activating <a href="http://frumin.net/ation/2007/06/le_triboro_rx.html" rel="nofollow">Triboro Line</a>, which is designed to maximize rather than minimize connections. The time to complain about the G was when it was on the drawing board in the 1920s. The IND chose to make the route incompatible with the existing lines, with no transfer to Atlantic/Pacific, Borough Hall, Hunters Point, or Queensboro Plaza.

If you want good crosstown service, ask the MTA to allocate more resources toward activating Triboro Line, which is designed to maximize rather than minimize connections.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63115 Alon Levy Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:38:40 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63115 Astoria is beginning to gentrify now that the hipsters in Manhattan and Brooklyn have nowhere to go. Astoria is beginning to gentrify now that the hipsters in Manhattan and Brooklyn have nowhere to go.

]]> By: Ron http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63102 Ron Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:34:33 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63102 According to this: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigqueens1.png There is a 5th track. Plus, the service advisory the last few weekends say some R trains terminate at Queens Plaza. How do they do that? There must be a way to bring the G train there. According to this:
http://images.nycsubway.org/tr.....ueens1.png

There is a 5th track. Plus, the service advisory the last few weekends say some R trains terminate at Queens Plaza. How do they do that? There must be a way to bring the G train there.

]]> By: Damned Architect http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63085 Damned Architect Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:25:32 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63085 Scott, you raise an interesting point: why does the MTA insist on running train cars in groups of 2 or 4? The 7 train is the perfect example; remember how the redbirds were made up of 5 pairs of R-36's with a solitary R-33 floating in the mix? I recall reading something about how the older paired cars had the air-conditioning going between them, which explains why there was always that one hot and muggy car (the R-33) on the 7 Train that remained empty even as the neighboring cars (R-36's) were overflowing! But since I don't work for the MTA, I can't say why your solution couldn't be carried out on the G line, assuming labor costs aren't an issue. Scott, you raise an interesting point: why does the MTA insist on running train cars in groups of 2 or 4? The 7 train is the perfect example; remember how the redbirds were made up of 5 pairs of R-36′s with a solitary R-33 floating in the mix? I recall reading something about how the older paired cars had the air-conditioning going between them, which explains why there was always that one hot and muggy car (the R-33) on the 7 Train that remained empty even as the neighboring cars (R-36′s) were overflowing! But since I don’t work for the MTA, I can’t say why your solution couldn’t be carried out on the G line, assuming labor costs aren’t an issue.

]]> By: George http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63080 George Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:17:51 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63080 There's a fifth track east of Queens Plaza, isn't there? Is that too short to turn trains around? I actually remember them putting that track up back when the 63rd St connector was being constructed. I always assumed that it would be used to turn G trains around, but for some reason or other it seems to be laying dormant now. There’s a fifth track east of Queens Plaza, isn’t there? Is that too short to turn trains around?

I actually remember them putting that track up back when the 63rd St connector was being constructed. I always assumed that it would be used to turn G trains around, but for some reason or other it seems to be laying dormant now.

]]> By: Scott E http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63077 Scott E Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:43:16 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63077 Are there no retired R46s? A single "B" car (no cab) should be able to be added. It would make a 375-foot train, which is not all that much more than one "half" of an eleven-car #7 train (360 feet). It's got two more doors (five cars x 4 doors/car versus 6 cars x 3 doors/car) and 15 more feet. But I guess there's a limit, and since the guy operating the G is also <i>driving</i> the train, as opposed to the #7 conductor who just opens the doors and makes announcements, it might be too much. Are there no retired R46s? A single “B” car (no cab) should be able to be added. It would make a 375-foot train, which is not all that much more than one “half” of an eleven-car #7 train (360 feet). It’s got two more doors (five cars x 4 doors/car versus 6 cars x 3 doors/car) and 15 more feet. But I guess there’s a limit, and since the guy operating the G is also driving the train, as opposed to the #7 conductor who just opens the doors and makes announcements, it might be too much.

]]> By: Damned Architect http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63076 Damned Architect Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:01:29 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63076 The reason that this won't happen is that the MTA is able to have a single person operating a 4 car train with R-46 units. Using older cars (such as the R-32's for example) would require hiring a train operator and a conductor because at least 6 cars would be needed. Why the difference: Because each R-46 is 75 feet long, therefore 4 cars equal 300 feet in length. An R-32 is 60 feet long, and since the MTA operates these (and almost all other units) in pairs, 4 cars would equal 240 feet and 6 cards would equal 360 feet. Obviously, a 20% reduction in passenger capacity would be unacceptable. But for a 20% increase in passenger capacity, labor costs are doubled! My guess is that the G train won't get additional carrying capacity until the entire line is automated like the L train now is. Will that happen anytime soon? Frankly, I'm betting that the R-46's stay on the G until the entire fleet is retired to the deep blue sea! Oops...forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one. The reason that this won’t happen is that the MTA is able to have a single person operating a 4 car train with R-46 units. Using older cars (such as the R-32′s for example) would require hiring a train operator and a conductor because at least 6 cars would be needed. Why the difference: Because each R-46 is 75 feet long, therefore 4 cars equal 300 feet in length. An R-32 is 60 feet long, and since the MTA operates these (and almost all other units) in pairs, 4 cars would equal 240 feet and 6 cards would equal 360 feet. Obviously, a 20% reduction in passenger capacity would be unacceptable. But for a 20% increase in passenger capacity, labor costs are doubled!

My guess is that the G train won’t get additional carrying capacity until the entire line is automated like the L train now is. Will that happen anytime soon? Frankly, I’m betting that the R-46′s stay on the G until the entire fleet is retired to the deep blue sea!
Oops…forgot to say great post! Looking forward to your next one.

]]> By: Damned Architect http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/07/29/the-g-train-not-perfect-but-closer/#comment-63070 Damned Architect Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:52:43 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3440#comment-63070 The reason that this won't happen is that the MTA is able to have a single person operating a 4 car train with R-46 units. Using older cars (such as the R-32's for example) would require hiring a train operator and a conductor because at least 6 cars would be needed. Why the difference: Because each R-46 is 75 feet long, therefore 4 cars equal 300 feet in length. An R-32 is 60 feet long, and since the MTA operates these (and almost all other units) in pairs, 4 cars would equal 240 feet and 6 cards would equal 360 feet. Obviously, a 20% reduction in passenger capacity would be unacceptable. But for a 20% increase in passenger capacity, labor costs are doubled! My guess is that the G train won't get additional carrying capacity until the entire line is automated like the L train now is. Will that happen anytime soon? Frankly, I'm betting that the R-46's stay on the G until the entire fleet is retired to the deep blue sea! The reason that this won’t happen is that the MTA is able to have a single person operating a 4 car train with R-46 units. Using older cars (such as the R-32′s for example) would require hiring a train operator and a conductor because at least 6 cars would be needed. Why the difference: Because each R-46 is 75 feet long, therefore 4 cars equal 300 feet in length. An R-32 is 60 feet long, and since the MTA operates these (and almost all other units) in pairs, 4 cars would equal 240 feet and 6 cards would equal 360 feet. Obviously, a 20% reduction in passenger capacity would be unacceptable. But for a 20% increase in passenger capacity, labor costs are doubled!

My guess is that the G train won’t get additional carrying capacity until the entire line is automated like the L train now is. Will that happen anytime soon? Frankly, I’m betting that the R-46′s stay on the G until the entire fleet is retired to the deep blue sea!

]]>