TheSubwayStation

I don't see where the has to merge with the ...But anyway, you're right that the don't have to be on one track. I made a mistake...Still though, I think you'd have delays because the merges with the almost instantly after the merges away. It's not that far away from sharing a track.

There's something else there besides the : the . You'll see it on the track map.

Because it goes 74 MPH . My prediction: Williamsburg Bridge crash revisited. But, you got your SPEED alright.

The catch is that the rush hour can't all run on the bridge for a particular reason, which I think you'll be able to figure out from looking at the track map.

NEXT: The Montague St tunnel under the river is unusable. I know what you guys would like do do, but there's a catch.

Sorry, but I'm not in the mood for this anymore. I know it was funny before, but I think we've all gotten tired of "fowming". BTW, it's "Montague" not "Mountage"...Interesting scrambling of the same letters .

No, you can run them on the Broadway Line, and change the signs to at the terminals if need be. I guess maybe the most logical thing would just be to run the between the Bronx and 2 Av, and lay up the trains in Brooklyn along the express tracks. This is an unnecessary reroute.

NEXT: the Manhattan bound track connecting the Brighton Line to the Manhattan Bridge between Atlantic Av and DeKalb Av is unusable. You have to account for all trains, and you can't cut the to one borough only. ***Note: I'm not going to pay attention to the 3 scenarios/24 hours rule, as worrying about something like that completely ruins the fun of posting scenarios. I've never posted any scenarios just to boost my post count.*** Thank you. I disagree with part of your idea (about discussion), but you're completely right that non-spammers shouldn't have to pay the price because of an occasional spam post (I don't know if it even happens much). As I said, if people don't want to solve "spam" scenarios, then they should feel free not to.

Look, I think that a discussion about what is the best way to solve a scenario is actually very productive. Rather than just making this a silly game thread, we can try to think about what the MTA should do if such scenarios happened in real life. Thinking about what's the best way to handle a Manhattan Bridge closure IMO is much better than if one guy just says, "(insert random station here) and (insert random station here) are all impassible," and everybody comes up with a bunch of lazy solutions. I'd say that we as members shouldn't be making rules about what other people can or can't post. We should feel free to advise other members and encourage them to follow these guidelines, but having ordinary members as the police is SURE to create wars and get this thread locked. In other words, we should feel free to criticize other members for doing things wrong (e.g. posting bad scenarios), but we shouldn't say, "YOU JUST BROKE THE RULES!!!". Besides, I really think that creating strict rules about what and when people can post will just make this thread less fun. IMO, we just have to accept that there are going to be a few bad posts in this thread...

If the MTA cared about interchangeability, then why would they have ordered the R179s with MITRAC propulsion?

Who did you hear it from?

That doesn't work.

Can you please say this in a less confusing way? IMO in the context of this thread, explaining specifically where the trains do run is clearer than "no trains between ____ and ____".

on one track is too many TPH.

NEXT: due to switch replacement, the 6 Av express tracks are unusable between 42 St and 34 St.

Really? Where did you here that the propulsion would necessarily be changed? I thought the only confirmed change was CBTC.

BMT/IND trains can't fit on IRT platforms, unfortunately. NEXT: the switch to the northbound loop north of 138 St-Grand Concourse is stuck in favor of the Woodlawn Line. Remember that the , , and (roughly 39 TPH total) can't fit on one track.

@ Brooklyn, I see what you're saying about the problems with the way the BMT was designed. I didn't say that the Brighton Line would only have a "few" fewer TPH; I said that a few TPH to Manhattan (10 TPH) is better than a lot of TPH (20 TPH) to Atlantic Avenue. The real problem is that we've got five lines worth of ridership, and only the capacity to fit three lines (and you say two lines) into Manhattan. I've realized that no matter how we route the trains, we'll still have the same number of riders crowding onto the same number of trains. I guess you could make the argument that terminating trains at Atlantic Av forces people onto the IRT (and thus reduces crowding on the BMT), but it's not like the IRT has that much room to spare either. The fact remains that there isn't enough capacity to meet demand without the Manhattan Bridge. I learned something today. A discussion.

Brooklyn, what you fail to understand is that running a few TPH to Manhattan is better than none at all. As far as crowding goes, running the at 20 TPH to Atlantic Avenue is basically no better than zero...Those same passengers will crowd on another train to Manhattan. Same with the ; if you cut it to Atlantic Avenue, it's not like those riders suddenly disappear. They can either get on a , , , or train. It wouldn't matter if you ran a million TPH on the if the didn't take people to their destinations. We'd still be dealing with the SAME low amount of TPH to Manhattan. I think that the real problem is that there isn't enough capacity in the Montague St tunnel period for ridership. It doesn't matter which trains you send through it or which ones you choose to cut back.

Yes, I guess. Although, if we're not, we can still debate whether Brighton can do okay without increasing the and cutting the to Atlantic.

We should keep in mind that under Brooklyn's plan, every other line besides the Brighton will be severely overcrowded, because practically every single rider will transfer at Atlantic Av... Also, the problem with your logic is that you're acting like and trains get completely full at that point, which I highly doubt. My solution for the tunnel: : 6 TPH : 10 TPH : 6 TPH : 6 TPH

You're completely missing my point, which is that there's no reason to give the Brighton Line more service if Brighton riders will all be transferring to other lines (with no extra service). First of all, your examples with the and aren't valid because those exceed 30 TPH...Second of all, having the on one track works reasonably well on 60 St. Keep in mind, the , , and lines currently have some of the better on-time performance in the system despite the fact that they all converge. Sure, having them share tracks for a longer distance will cause delays (I understand that), but there are plenty of lines that are plagued by some delays but still work well enough.

You insist on increasing service to solve overcrowding issues. My point was that there's no reason to do that, since riders will add crowds to another line (because there isn't room for the increased in the tunnel to Manhattan). I'm saying that if you don't increase the , there is enough room in the tunnel. Keep in mind that there are other lines that are very close to 30 TPH, and while they suffer from some delays, they still are okay.

This makes no sense to me, because your plan just takes those and riders and puts them ALL onto the , , , and trains. Why not just centralize the crowding to the ? Your plan wouldn't solve the overcrowding issues; it just shifts them over to other lines.