by doepack
As I suspected, service levels to the new Grand/Cicero station will be similar to that which existed at Cragin/Hermosa, with 21 trains serving it, including those that will stop there on request off-peak. On NCS, the River Grove stop has been deleted from trains 106 and 113, while 110's schedule has been beefed up by a few minutes to bring it closer to its actual running time. But there's still areas of single track on this line, most notably near Deval, which is why train 110 remains in its slot, with a 2+ hour gap between it and the following train 112. Under the current setup, 110 meets outbound 101 in the vicinity of Deval, and if its on time, it'll cross Deval first. I don't understand why Metra can't push up 110's schedule about a half hour or so to allow 101 to cross Deval first, then they could meet in a double-tracked section north of there instead of one having to wait for the other. Besides, it's a little strange that, after 7:15 or so, NCS commuters in Lake County heading downtown have to wait more than two hours for the next train should they miss 110. Guess they'll have to run over to MDN...
Also, MDW trains 2223 and 2246 have had their schedules scaled back by three minutes. Shouldn't be a big deal, but it could be, for several reasons. One, 2223 turns to 2246. Two, 2223 frequently runs at, or near capacity. And three, this train makes all stops (ex. Hanson Pk/Mannheim), and due to the heavy load of passengers, this train frequently operates 4-7 min. late en route on average. As such, having its original 8 minute layover time in BT cut to five on an already chronically late train makes no sense at all. With the same set of equipment used on 2223/2246/2247, the minor delays on 2223 almost always spills over onto the other two trains. I can think of a two-step solution to fix this:
A) Move 2221 up to a 1440 departure (keeping the same stops), then move 2223 up to a 1545 departure, and turn that train into an express to Franklin Park, then local stops to BT. Given the crowds on that train just about every day, the demand is certainly there. Local passengers E of Franklin Park can take 2225, leaving 20 min. later.
B) 2247 should be moved up at least five minutes, leaving at 1845, which would give 2246 a little more of a delay cushion. But many later evening trains to Big Timber have tight turnaround times at both terminals, so unless equipment is added, working out a perfectly symmetrical schedule may not be possible, and the status quo will have to suffice. I just think that many of Metra's schedules don't always adequately reflect changing ridership patterns, and being slow to adapt to these changes may cost them riders in the long run...
Also, MDW trains 2223 and 2246 have had their schedules scaled back by three minutes. Shouldn't be a big deal, but it could be, for several reasons. One, 2223 turns to 2246. Two, 2223 frequently runs at, or near capacity. And three, this train makes all stops (ex. Hanson Pk/Mannheim), and due to the heavy load of passengers, this train frequently operates 4-7 min. late en route on average. As such, having its original 8 minute layover time in BT cut to five on an already chronically late train makes no sense at all. With the same set of equipment used on 2223/2246/2247, the minor delays on 2223 almost always spills over onto the other two trains. I can think of a two-step solution to fix this:
A) Move 2221 up to a 1440 departure (keeping the same stops), then move 2223 up to a 1545 departure, and turn that train into an express to Franklin Park, then local stops to BT. Given the crowds on that train just about every day, the demand is certainly there. Local passengers E of Franklin Park can take 2225, leaving 20 min. later.
B) 2247 should be moved up at least five minutes, leaving at 1845, which would give 2246 a little more of a delay cushion. But many later evening trains to Big Timber have tight turnaround times at both terminals, so unless equipment is added, working out a perfectly symmetrical schedule may not be possible, and the status quo will have to suffice. I just think that many of Metra's schedules don't always adequately reflect changing ridership patterns, and being slow to adapt to these changes may cost them riders in the long run...
--Dorian--
