RR503

6 minutes ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

Even better - they use the Vignelli style with Arial Semi and region focus, which is a cutaway view of an affected service area in tandem with the reported change.

Hell hath frozen over 

Any pics by any chance? I’d love to see.

I haven’t seen these new posters — are they finally doing maps of the service changes? 

11 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

At least now we can speculate that the R211s will be assigned to the    and  lines (along with the  and Rockaway Park  .

 

ever since the R46s and not including the R143s the  line has always had the chance to get factory fresh cars and it seems like it will continue. Maybe they’ll wait for the R211s to start arriving to start displacing the R160s to Jamaica so that they don’t have to waste effort transferring the R46s to Coney Island, having the repairmen learn to maintain a car class that has never been repaired in that yard all for nothing. And the Jamaica R46s can retire on the  and

I doubt that. The 211s will go where their CBTC capabilities and wider doors (and gangways) are needed, so expect another swap between CI and Jamaica when they arrive... 

13 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Your right forgot about the tunnel config. They'll have to cut the tube and create a box in essence. Oh, I have a few complete lines. I got em from a friend at MTACC a few years back.  The BMT diagram's for the most part are from the mid 60's .  Even got my hands on the Myrtle from Bridge-Jay to Metropolitan.. I can put them on google drive share a link if you like.  I have to dig for the IRT ones .  

That would be spectacular if it is at all possible!!

Not only will I use them, but I'll show them to my bosses at the MTA who have been searching for years for this kind of thing.

Thank you so much!!

Yeah I am more worried about the underpinning etc that will have to happen than anything else. Also remember the  at that point is in a cast iron tube -- I'm not an engineer but wouldn't that be much more difficult to modify/add a connection to than a cut-and-cover stretch? 

BTW nice diagram -- where did you get it? 

44 minutes ago, RES2773 said:

Sorry for the late quote. So after that the 7 line would be NTT only?

Yup. AFAIK no 62s are being CBTCed. 

1 hour ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

Why not just run the extra service all the way?

Because why do anything properly when you can spend 98 cents on a dollar and provide the minimum. 

On a separate note, it’s really time to increase late night service to 4tph. 

56 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe you might not have to clear Joralemon. How about breaking off from A1, A2 between Smith and Boerum like you suggested, but instead of going south towards State, we go north towards Montague/Willoughby? Then we can make the connection to the  in between the Court and Jay St-MetroTech (formerly Lawrence St) stations. Boerum Place is a wide street at that point (just before it turns into Adams St and onto the Brooklyn Bridge), so I think running the  under Boerum at that point shouldn’t be problematic and the  platform at Borough Hall is close to the surface. You’d have to clear the southbound  track where it crosses under the  there. The northbound  would also have to clear the  at that point as well, but with Columbus Park over there, I don’t think it would be too tricky to build this Fulton-Montague connection. Running the  under State, then over to Schermerhorn, would be a great option too, but then we’d have to get Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS built first. 

That’ll be one hell of a grade. Remember that the northbound track will have to split while over the  , dive under the  , go further down (as you say) to clear the  tunnels, and then pop up to merge by Court St — whose platform ends under its eponymous street. I’d love the rollercoaster, but T/Os will hate it, and itll be one hell of a construction job. 

I really like the idea in theory, just got some practical concerns. 

1 hour ago, RestrictOnTheHanger said:

I've noticed that even with the old signal system the trains would slow down around 67th Ave if a train was at 71st. So its a bit slow into 71st during the rush. But the past few days its been slow past Grand Ave and 63rd as well

If you look out the front and see if there actually are new timers, I can look into it for you. 

MTA feeds google data about the system via GTFS, GIS data, etc so not google’s fault.

I’m sure someone else could explain in more detail. 

35 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Are you proposing to reroute the  off the 8th Ave Line at West 4th St, then via the  to Broadway-Lafayette to accomplish all this? I can’t imagine how much of a choke point that’s going to be. And you wouldn’t be able to run this  very frequently because it would have to share tracks with the  and  between Broadway-Lafayette and West 4th, then the  upon returning to its current route. For a line that’s going to be on its own for most of the way, this isn’t an issue you want to have.

I’d much prefer to do a Utica Ave subway connected either to the Fulton St or Canarsie subways, where there is - potentially - capacity to accommodate another branch line (especially the Fulton St subway).

I have a feeling he means use the provisions off of 8th ave. local at Worth st, but I agree this is v. extra. 

As for Utica, the  there and send the  to New Lots -- there are provisions for that and capacity to do so. 

Fulton has very little capacity -- all trains have to merge at Hoyt, and if you must do something with the , it's better off splitting into a branch that goes down the Bay Ridge Branch as far as there is space for both it and freight tracks. 

While I agree the rollsign thing isn’t the end of the world, neither the B nor 6 are comparable. Both have dedicated fleets/terminals. 

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But can't the subway run along a railroad, or does the FRA not allow it?

This can also be done temporally, but that’s impossible in this case — freight and subway both need 24 hr access. Much much easier to use FRA compliant vehicles. 

1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

They run about 4 trains day on the Bay Ridge for freight. Maybe 2 tracks for passenger service on one for freight? The ROW should be able to support it (3 tracks). Doing business in London at least twice a year I have to say I'm a big fan of the Overground system I think NYC can learn alot there. RX, Lower Montauk, Upper Rockaway and SIR could easily make a 3rd division and run FRA Compliant cars think PA5 (PATH) or M7 with subway layouts. This would be super deal a lot cheaper then Building from scratch. I know I've stated this before but could be a way forward. Tie it into fare control with the Existing subway.

Absolutely -- and if you're using FRA compliant vehicles there's no need for more than 2 tracks in those narrower areas.

The only potential problem would be with the PANYNJ. Their cross harbor program (as pie in the sky-y as it is) would funnel a lot more freight traffic to those aforementioned tracks, including double stacks. Those well cars can't clear the third rail, so either you'd have to string catenary (which costs a lot, is more of a disturbance, and makes LIRR interoperability more difficult (you'd need loads of M8s)), or get into a very complex interstate commerce lawsuit, one which the port authority would probably win. 

Even once beyond that, you have the congestion around Fresh Pond, where the NYA uses main tracks of both the LMB and Bay Ridge branch as yard space, another complex issue given our regional aversion to more railyard space. 

None of these issues are in any way irresolvable, but they are food for thought. I for one am a big supporter of an overground type network -- maybe using Freedom Ticket to begin with -- on the Bay Ridge and Lower Montauk branches (RBB should be subway given available connections at both ends). 

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC the ROW basically has room for four tracks, so couldn't you just build two subway tracks next to the existing tracks?

Realistically speaking, the RX would be so separated from the rest of the network that it would be nice to build it as a fully automated metro service, but that would happen over the TWU's dead body.

It does in certain places, but there are long stretches of 2 track wide cuts, for example in midwood and Jackson heights. 

On 10/6/2017 at 2:56 PM, jon2305 said:

When are the rest of the R62A's suppose to leave the (7)?

December, if nothing else goes wrong. 

3 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

This  plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd  crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

 Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

 Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

 Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

 College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since  trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

 is eliminated and replaced by the .

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the  train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the  would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the , plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The  isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the  at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer),  at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the . If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

I'm all for filling transit deserts, all for a line along the LIE (beyond Queens Boulevard, where it's physically possible) and all for  to Northern Boulevard. What I'm saying is that spending all those billions on a new, seemingly 4 track subway line to north Brooklyn and central Queens seems like overkill, especially given that Maspeth/Glendale/Ridgewood are pretty low density, and sending commuters from Little Neck to Manhattan via Bushwick is quite circuitous. Spend that $$$ on the Bypass, full length SAS (I don't think exp tracks are necessary, but we've had that discussion), and  to queens. 

FYI Triboro RX would not be run with subway trains -- it'd be run with something along the lines of high capacity M8s for FRA compliance, as appropriating freight lines for passenger service is illegal (I can provide laws and explanation if you want -- I occasionally consult on lower Montauk branch passenger service for the MTA).

From what I've seen, the  has become quite popular with commuters who transfer from the  trains for access to North Brooklyn. That said, I agree with you that there's significant room for improvement -- I'm all for the Union Ave station, and the Atlantic Ctr xfers, but not the Queens Plaza one. You'd disrupt  and  train service with terminating  trains. That said, I don't think any of the projects you propose would have any effect on  demand on QB. Queens Plaza is a station served by QB trains, so that's moot, no market of size exists between the  /  lines east of Union and QB (also it'd probably be faster to take a bus given geography), and no commuter in their right mind would take the  to Atlantic from QB to catch the services found there. 

Which is the only major NY airport without runways 13/31? 

14 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

LGA Link N train IF the LIE line branched off of QB, the  would have to go to the LIE, and  to Rockaways, which is what i meant about why i wouldn't branch it off of QB.

R68onBroadway: When did I say the  would run via 53rd? Seems like you are a bit confused. The  would branch off at Broadway-Lafayette and run via a new Houston-S 4 St Tunnel to Union Av where it would meet up with the , then would run via the Bushwick and Montauk branches to Metropolitan Av, where it would re-join the , and THEN run out to Little Neck. Stops would be at Montrose Av and Maspeth for the Bushiwck-Montauk portion. No elimination of Bronx/CPW service. I'd NEVER do that. Plus, SAS service would run on Fulton and West End to replace the  and  respectively. The  would be for additional rush hr service and run closer in the heart of Midtown, plus it would follow the old  route to Bay Pkwy. Plus, the  on West End would mean SAS service replacing the  tho both services would have to run full-time at the same time. In other words, no matter what you do when you swap them, they both still have to run full-time. Finally SAS service on Brighton would mean losing access to the heart of Midtown. Whereas if SAS service was on the West End and 6 Av on Brighton, you would still have a balanced out levels of service to central Midtown. 

IDK if you know this or not, but the community actually OPPOSED cutting the  to Court Sq back in 2001 when the  was introduced, and because of this, it wasn't cut back until 2010. The only reason why it was cut back most of the time was because 71 Av was at capacity. Late at night is when it is MOST useless but the  isn't like that ALL the time. Rush hrs and middays it isn't that bad. Besides, if the  was really useless it wouldn't have been extended to Church Av. The  would offer transfers to many lines if it went to 71 Av when the  goes to Rockaways. Same logic as the Triboro RX. Just because it doesn't enter MAnhattan doesn't mean it's completely useless. It can actually be a SHORTCUT to avoid overcrowding. Plus you would have to increase  service, which would be impossible due to the congestion in the 60 St Tube. The  and  can both handle 67 Av by themselves. 

I agree with you on  to LIE. 

This whole  plan seems like a lot for nothing, Isn't it much simpler and much more direct to get N Queens capacity with an  extension up 10th/86th/Northern Boulevard? Rearranging all these 6th avenue/SAS/South Brooklyn services just strikes me as overly complex and highly disruptive, not to mention illegal given you're appropriating freight ROWs for subway service... 

Now about the  -- yes I did know that. You must remember though that these community groups exist for the sole purpose of elevating those who hate change. Regardless of whether the change would be beneficial, people will oppose it because they want things to be "the way they always were." I'm sure if you asked actual QB subway riders at the time, they'd be all for more Manhattan service. That is where the VAST majority of commuters on the corridor go, so designing service that goes, well, there, will always get points from them. 

The reason the  wasn't cut back was that the MTA didn't want to run the  nights and weekends, and needed a second service on QB. Then in 2010, when service cuts came along, they cut it due to low ridership. And the reason they extended it to church was to facilitate the Culver rebuild, and the reason they kept it is that more service is always better. I never said the  didn't get used at all -- I said Manhattan services were more useful. Given that we can't add another Manhattan to Culver service, why not. 

Now a word on transfers from an extended . Queens Boulevard is one of the most chronically overcrowded corridors in the city. As such, to discourage the creation of unsafe platform conditions, the aim of service planning there is to create services that go exactly where people want without transfers. By going to Manhattan, the  accomplish that. The  does not. 

23 hours ago, CenSin said:

A realistic and difficult scenario:

During AM rush, a Brooklyn-bound   train breaks down over the junction south of 145 Street. trains from 148 Street and the yard are blocked. The train is followed by several other trains behind it in the tunnel stretching to 149 Street–Grand Concourse. Manhattan-bound trains cannot enter 149 Street–Grand Concourse due to the blockage.

Due to a fallen customer customer at 137 Street–City College, Bronx-bound trains must run express from 96 Street to 157 Street on the express track as paramedics arrive on the scene.

Signal malfunctions at 7 Avenue () are cause severe delays in Brooklyn-bound service.

1. Reroute the trains already in service.
2. Order proper service changes.
3. Offer alternatives to affected passengers.

 express 96-145

 trains in the tube reverse out, discharge at 149, and head back north.  trains hold until the  s clear and then terminate at 149. 

 trains on the  to 145, then terminate (there's a switch n/b exp->local between 137 and 145) 

 runs with delays. 

 service then from 180 to Dyre, Flatbush to Burnside.  from Wakefield to 149, 110 to Flatbush.

 96-Brighton

 in two sections: CI to Atlantic (  local), and 205 to WTC or 2nd avenue via CPW express, 8th ave local. 

38 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

 via the  To Burnside Avenue

 terminates at 110 St

 is suspended 145 Street down

 Takes over on New Lots

 or runs 96 St-Brighton Beach

 runs via 8 Av going Downtown

will cover some express service

You can't run the on 8th ave without having to terminate it in Manhattan somewhere -- no way to access exp tracks south of W4

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

First off, if the  DID run half express then the would obviously have to take over the local service. Yes, there would be merging delays. 

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

As for a QB Local on the RBB, it could just terminate at either WTC or Houston St-2 Av 

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Yeah no. Lets do some addition. 

There are currently 15 trains per hour on Queens Boulevard Express. There are also 15 trains. That adds to 30. With the current signal system, only 30 trains per hour can run on the express tracks. They are therefore at capacity. Even with CBTC, you would not be able to provide any meaningful level of train service via express, to say nothing of the fact that the attachment provisions head to the local tracks. 

As for the bypass, its highest and best use is to provide the necessary capacity for second avenue service to the Queens Corridor -- including areas east of Rego Park. The RBB, while important, will never attain the same ridership numbers as the QC in general, so when building new lines to serve the area, we must plan accordingly. Local service will be more than adequate, and honestly isn't actually much slower. 

Ending QB Local - RBB trains at 2av or WTC will overfill WTC and lose the Jamaica/Myrtle - 6th ave connection. Just extend the -- the has 49 stops while the currently only has 35. It can be done.

1 stop on Queens Boulevard will lose useful train service -- 67th ave. No new local service needs to be added there -- the frequency can just be increased as the Forest Hills layups will finally have capacity to spare. Also the is a completely useless waste of track capacity -- it doesn't serve manhattan. You're asking for more platform issues at QP/Roosevelt. 

I would also check out the book "Routes not Taken" -- gives a good overview of the line's history. 

If you want info on the current iteration, read the various EISs. They'll tell all. 

A board member asked about cost reductions during the meeting. Lhota rambled and gave no real answer, talking about design-build, efficiencies, "cost control," etc. No big acceptance of the fact that we're a hot mess in terms of cap costs.