2nd Ave. express?

Based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of what service on the
2nd Avenue Line will be, am I correct in assuming that the actual T line
will be local only, and the only express service will be when it
branches off to the Broadway express? (Q)

Wikipedia's entry says that the T will be the only line in the system
which is only two tracks. Is this true?

--
"Drop the One Ring! Drop it NOW!"
- Jack Bauer in 'Lord of the Rings'

Babaganoosh wrote:
> Wikipedia's entry says that the T will be the only line in the system
> which is only two tracks. Is this true?

It'll be the only trunk line in Manhattan limited to two tracks, I suppose.

On Feb 17, 9:16 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@> wrote:

> Nonetheless, your impression is probably far from reality.  Sure, the
> expresses carry more on the east side, but that could be attributed to
> the fact that they go to more places.  Many people know going from 86th
> to 14th on the 6 is about as fast as going on the 4/5, and if the 6
> comes first, the time saved on the 4/5 would likely be wasted waiting
> for the next 4/5.

That's hardly an option at 86th St.

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Feb 17, 9:16 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@> wrote:
>
>> Nonetheless, your impression is probably far from reality. Sure, the
>> expresses carry more on the east side, but that could be attributed to
>> the fact that they go to more places. Many people know going from 86th
>> to 14th on the 6 is about as fast as going on the 4/5, and if the 6
>> comes first, the time saved on the 4/5 would likely be wasted waiting
>> for the next 4/5.
>
> That's hardly an option at 86th St.

Yeah, and that's another source of idiocy. People wait on the stairs.
The best strategy is to just take whatever gets you to your destination
with the fewest transfers.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 15:26:05 -0500, Bolwerk wrote:

> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 9:16 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@> wrote:
>>
>>> Nonetheless, your impression is probably far from reality. Sure, the
>>> expresses carry more on the east side, but that could be attributed to
>>> the fact that they go to more places. Many people know going from
>>> 86th to 14th on the 6 is about as fast as going on the 4/5, and if the
>>> 6 comes first, the time saved on the 4/5 would likely be wasted
>>> waiting for the next 4/5.
>>
>> That's hardly an option at 86th St.
>
> Yeah, and that's another source of idiocy. People wait on the stairs.
> The best strategy is to just take whatever gets you to your destination
> with the fewest transfers.

I'm not sure it's idiocy. Especially on the Lex, where service is so
stochastic, I almost always take the first available train. Also, going
from 86th to 14th is not just as fast going local; it's not even as fast
going from 42th to 14th (although it is much closer). The key is to get
on the first train going in your direction.

willie

>First off, I don't think two more tracks adds double the capacity. As

That's true.

It actually more than doubles the capacity. Fewer stops means fewer delays
and therefore greater throughput, anecdotes about people transferring back
and forth between locals and expresses notwithstanding <g>.

That said, starting from scratch with a signal suystem that handles 90
second headways, say, feeding into both the present Q/Broadway and eventual
T/Second Avenue probably results in a far better cost/benefit, especially
because of limitations on the older part of the system.

Long tail tracks at 125th so that trains need not crawl into the terminal
helps considerably (the LIRR tunnel under GCT and the #7 extension are both
good examples of this kind of design.

Cheers,
Jim Guthrie