RR503

7 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

So I'm guessing that the  would enter on the local and uses the red switches (and existing black ones) to turn around? How would the  go to Coney Island?

No service patterns are changed. It *may* be nice to have that relief valve, however, if/when Coney Island's  tracks run out of terminal capacity and we want to add more  service. 

Just now, JeremiahC99 said:

That is a great idea. I wonder how we reconfigure Brighton Beach to turn local trains at that station using the express tracks? Are you suggesting grade-separated junctions.

Nah, just this. 

You'd be able to cross a train over to the express tracks, turn it, and then run back out without ever merging w/  service. Optimally we'd have some better, grade separated config, but this is what we've got to work with for now.

This would be my first line of attack -- moving crossovers. I'd also look carefully at the placement of tracks and crossovers at the other end of the platforms. The reason that we have AKs there is that, while there are no bumpers there except for the , a train that overruns the platform in any direction will end up in the middle of an interlocking, which is, ya know, not great. So to ensure trains will always stop before fouling switches, they have to enter quite slowly. If you can move the parts of the interlocking where the tail end of the terminal tracks merge with others, that'd be another good savings albeit one likely more difficult to achieve. 

11 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

One of those locations should be Brighton Beach. It should handle more trains as well.

Also, would train throughput at the station increase if the express trains just pulled into the southbound platform, discharged all of its passengers on the platform, pulled into one of the two middle express tracks past the station, and reentered service on the northbound track (i.e, recreating Broad Street)? To me, the current situation where trains just pull into any track just recreates Flatbush on the , but on the . I would also like to see an increase of trains turned around there (rather than 10).

With current NYCT relay ops, you're probably better off as is with the qualification that Brighton Beach's crossover is a bit far from the platform. Relay terminals in this system are, thanks to long terminal dwells and the common coexistence of relays and DGTs, generally capable of only about 20tph, while our best turnbacks can do 30+. The issue with Flatbush, btw, isn't the platform config -- it's the fact that the tracks stub end, so trains have to enter slowly (as enforced by GTs) to ensure safety. 

Long term, even if we fix relay ops, I'd keep the  as is for two reasons: turnbacks are cheaper to operate than relays, and I would like to (given a reconfig) turn service at Brighton Beach off of the local tracks using the express tracks beyond the station). 

Just now, Union Tpke said:

Which short turns would you fix? Kings Highway is being worked on now.

Depends on where we see demand growing/on just how bad each of the Stillwell terminals are/how bad we project relay ops to be in the future. First priority for me would be reconfiguring Brighton Beach so you can run a relay terminal off the local tracks w/o interfering w/  service, but you could also convert Bay Parkway/West End into a low-interference relay-friendly terminal by adding a switch between the s/b local and the middle just north of the station, or KHN to the same by adding a platform over one of the trackways, or....

Point being, there are options. 

3 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

You could have your  from 96th Street to 96th Street (with deinterlining) and your  from Jamaica Center to Jamaica Center. 

LOL indeed you could. Though  from 96 to 96 would rely on Dekalb not being deinterlined. 

Just now, Union Tpke said:

The obvious solution is to through run the  with the .  

That likely creates more operations problems than it solves -- the  and  added together would make for one _long_ route! I would just move some switches around, resignal the terminal and perhaps upgrade/reconfigure some short turn locations to support higher capacity and less disruptive terminal operations. 

37 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That’s a great map. 
 

One thing I notice is that at Coney Island , all 4 lines are turning 10 trains per hour or less. Even if Brooklyn DeKalb Interlocking were deinterlined and the Broadway and other lines were also deinterlined to remove that bottleneck in 34th Street, what else is stopping them from turning 12+ trains per hour at Coney Island? I know it says on the map that many factors constrain train throughout, such as track infrastructure, but I wonder what makes Coney a bottleneck? Is it the switch layout for all lines? 
 

I’m asking since I see Coney Island as an integral part of my revised subway expansion (and deinterline) plan.

Coney Island definitely ranks high among the worst laid out terminals in the system. Switches are far from the terminal platforms (on the  and  especially), and the terminal is -- get this -- the last place automatic key by signals are in mainline revenue service use in the entire system.

Automatic key-by, for those of you who don't do signals, is a function whereby you can, in the simplest of terms, pass red signals by stopping *just* in front of the stop arm. Keying by was the villain in many a subway fender bender back in the day so was disabled on all mainline signals, but the layout of Coney Island's terminal platforms is such that signal engineers decided the most expedient way to ensure low speeds entering certain platforms was to install them. 

I'm frankly not sure of what the exact capacity of any given CI platform is, but I don't imagine it's high. 15tph or less, probably. Luckily there are _plenty_ of short turn locations available across BMT south. 

Thought y'all would enjoy this map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Y-5FFDDOcrCR1YRK8wI3HEFK7bsc06_K

On 12/11/2019 at 10:47 PM, Deucey said:

Would it be simpler to build a go-between tunnel in Manhattan that puts Bk bound 6 Av and Broadway trains on the south side of the Bridge and Uptown trains on the north side of the bridge?

Not really -- track geometry isn't the biggest constraint in the area/the geometry constraints that do exist are mostly south of Dekalb Ave station (the curvy bits heading into the various Barclays platforms).

On 12/11/2019 at 11:54 AM, Wallyhorse said:

The main purpose of this line is to give Brighton riders if not more an option to get to northern Brooklyn and parts of Queens without having to go through Manhattan.   The transfer allows those from Brighton as well as Myrtle looking for Queens Boulevard or Flushing to be able to do so again while not going through Manhattan while also providing the current Franklin Avenue Shuttle line with far more service between there, Metropolitan and Coney Island (with full-length, two-track stations replacing the current single track and short stations) and more easily allow more riders on the Myrtle Avenue portion of the current for example to reach the train at Franklin Avenue and not either have to backtrack to Manhattan or take the to Broadway Junction for the or for instance.   Plus, it would allow the and  to access the Broadway-Brooklyn line in an emergency or because of a GO (there would be connections to that from an extended Franklin Avenue portion that continues onto a rebuilt portion of the old Myrtle EL with all such stations between Myrtle and Essex extended to 600' as Phase 1 of a long-term plan to lengthen all such stations) and be able to continue via 6th Avenue after that with provisions to if in the future such a line is warranted made permanent.   

A few quick points

- Spending money to build a complex and visually disruptive connection between the Brighton and Broadway-Brooklyn lines is an objectively poor allocation of funds. If you want to build out a funky grade separated interlocking along the latter line, fix Myrtle! Brighton riders would be just fine if we made the shuttle 600' compliant and thus provided  riders with a route into Manhattan when the Flatbush tunnel goes down. 

- Moreover, connecting Brighton to Myrtle creates a route which boomerangs around really all of the primary activity centers. You're on Brighton, heading north, towards downtown Brooklyn...just kidding, you're going up the shuttle ROW towards Williamsburg and LIC...but just kidding about that too, we'll cut east south of Williamsburg to serve the vaunted Sheepshead Bay-Ridgewood market. If you want to extend something up the  ROW, make a  connection to get Brighton riders (and, by extension, IRT and Fulton riders) easier access to LIC for comparatively little $$$. Otherwise...nah. 

31 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Instead of seemingly random closures and reroutes, explain that "X is happening so we can do Y and when we're finished, you'll end up with Z". 

Alas, I believe "seemingly" is doing a lotta work in that sentence. 

In all seriousness, though, I think what you propose makes much sense. Piecemeal work leads to disorganization which leads to inefficiency which leads to cost/schedule overruns. Pursuing a more concerted approach to GOs would do a lotta good. 

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

And unidirectional reroutes of the  and .

Despite me and @RR503 having that debate little while ago about weekend  service, I honestly still can’t see it being extended out to Midtown due to ongoing full closures of construction and/or work under traffic on other trunk lines that are not Queens Blvd. The only other way I could see weekend  service to/from Midtown is if CBTC finally comes into play across the whole system or if they limit the constant  Manhattan-Brooklyn reroutes. Can’t have the  running on the same tracks between West 4 and Broadway-Lafayette.

I personally feel like the only reason why weekend  service short turns at Essex (outside of the 14th Street Tunnel shutdowns) is because it is not a Nassau Street Line train? Hence you see the heavier sort of crowding on uptown   trains at Delancey-Essex lower level. But they really should sometime in the future if the  really can’t access 6th Avenue.

You could _concievably_ cram  onto one track if you did 6+5+5+5+5 with zero flagging on 6th, but that would require a level of operational competence at West 4th and 34th that simply does not exist today. Whether or not we can expect many of those 8th-via-6th GOs in the coming years boils down to how NYCT plans to phase 8th CBTC -- ie whether or not they want to go the full shutdown route or the express/local GO route -- but given budgetary issues, I think a more realistic alternative to  to 96 or to Queens Plaza is just extending it to Chambers. Its Essex terminal is garbage for connectivity, and Chambers really shouldn't be that much of a cost. 

2 hours ago, NBTA said:

Where can I find graphs like this?

I made them with a code a friend sent me that uses R and files downloaded from the MTA's public data feeds. If you're interested in me sending you a copy, dm me. 

21 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

I have a feeling that the  line at the very least will still be using 46's past Dec 23rd. Only 2 and a half sets of out like what 45? sets of R46s have been transferred so far and were already at December 9th. They can probably only transfer like 1 or 2 sets a day at most? Yea CBTC will only be starting on the express tracks but service disruptions and G.O's... 

Old signals will likely be reactivated/CBTC placed in bypass for those sorts of disruptions 

On 12/8/2019 at 10:47 AM, m2fwannabe said:

Should have been a delivery this past week.  Probably 3030-34.

I was missed it.  I had a stroke Tuesday and spent almost all week in the hospital.  Need Speech PT.

Nobody there even knew at all about the R-179's.

3318-3327 was last I knew as burning-in.

When that starts the 3020-49 will then begin on .

Godspeed.

3 minutes ago, Lex said:

I really can't say it was much better before that. Such is the fate of an especially long route with a rather short express run (when compared to the route's total length)...

I'm old enough to remember the  when it ran 8 minute headways on weekends. Those were the days. Trains...actually came. 

Worth noting that the express/local split of a route + the length of a route has little predictive ability: # of merges, dwell times, signalling, and on weekends GO volume are the metrics that matter. 

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would myself as noted before extend all of the current stations on the Franklin shuttle to 600 feet with the idea of doing an eventual extension of such with additional stops that connect to the at most likely Bedford-Nostrand and a rebuilt portion of the old Myrtle Avenue EL with a stop at Sumner Avenue (from the old line) that would go to a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue-Broadway and continue to Metropolitan Avenue as the Myrtle-Brighton line, most likely as a "Black " train running between Metropolitan Avenue and Coney Island at all times (part of a re-do of the Brighton line where the  becomes the second Brighton local to Coney Island and the  becomes the Brighton Express to Brighton Beach (extended to Coney Island evenings, overnights and weekends). I'd also as part of this have a connection from the new Myrtle-Brighton line to the Broadway-Brooklyn line so in an emergency, and  trains can use that to get to Manhattan via 6th Avenue (with all stations between Myrtle and Essex extended to 600 feet as Phase 1 of a longer-term plan to eventually extend ALL such Eastern Division stations to 600 feet).  

So we should link one line through residential neighborhoods (Brighton) with another (Myrtle). Got it. What is a ridership draw, anyway, right?

1. This is not just about the B44. This  branch would have every local stop on the Brighton line north of Brighton Beach as catchment, a catchment expanded by all the buses that connect to said stops. 

2. "People have differing experiences with walking"...okay, and? We have long transfers, short transfers, complex transfers, and crowded transfers all across this system -- and for each type, there are countless examples that get overwhelming daily use. We of course should be sensitive to the needs of the mobility impaired, but Franklin Ave is hardly the most difficult transfer to rationalize. And people don't generally opt for convenience -- that's the assumption that made the IRT the dwell time shitshow it is today. New Yorkers will transfer to an express at the drop of a hat, even if it means they give up their seat for standing in a 2.5 sq feet/person subway car. 

3. I discussed how uneven frequencies can impact operations, yes. But that has very little relevance here. These trains are stopping on different tracks and serving different markets, and the 10tph service level on the  is hardly some hardship that will discourage transfers! Some examples of heavily used transfers from lines with throughputs >=19tph (combined ) to lines with service levels =< 10tph:

- 125  to  or  

- Bway Jct  to  or  

- [Fulton express stop]  to  

- Jay St  to  

- Hoyt-Schermerhorn to  

Would I like to run this imagined  branch at 15tph all day long? Sure, but that likely will not happen. 

4. I agree, we should build only in areas that are likely to have real impacts. I think this is one such area. 

11 hours ago, Lex said:

That implies that the trip would be time-prohibitive, which it would be if all northbound buses used New York Avenue (as the pre-SBS B44 ran). That, however, is not the case, especially since Brooklyn's streets are generally nowhere near as shit as Manhattan's.

Can't say I follow what you mean here, though I somewhat contest that Brooklyn's streets are good -- ever been to Flatbush Junction during a rush hour? 

11 hours ago, Lex said:

The rail systems of Brooklyn and Manhattan are rather accommodating, whereas the only areas in NYC Staten Island really cares about are Manhattan's CBD, Bay Ridge, and maybe Downtown Brooklyn (extremely unlikely to change anytime soon, so don't bother). By stark contrast, the Bronx network is rather limiting (all trains go to Manhattan, and all but the  are rather north-south within the borough), and the Queens rail network is pure shite. If we're to focus on increasing rail service to LIC, we need to focus on these groups -- especially the eastern portions of the Bronx and Queens, which have especially poor cohesion with the rest of the larger network. Yes, there are improvements that can be made in Brooklyn, but that borough already has the easiest time reaching LIC.

Yeah, of course we should focus on improving Bronx and Queens' connectivity to the other outer boroughs. But that misses the point: the Franklin- connection is attractive largely because how easy it is: we're talking less than a mile of new tunnel. I'm hard pressed to name a similarly simple rail investment that could be made in the Bronx or Queens that would have a comparable connectivity impact. 

23 minutes ago, YankeesPwnMets said:

So as someone who is way out of the loop on this stuff.... when is CBTC being activated on Queens Blvd? I assumed it wouldn't be ready until the early 2020s....

Scuttlebutt has the first section cut over 12/23 (no that isn't a typo)

17 minutes ago, Lex said:

I'd still pick the bus. For one, the transfer over there would be more optimal (upon reaching the transfer point, everything's in one place, unlike the pie-in-the-sky 15 tph that, knowing you, you're assuming for Franklin Avenue). For two, not many are really willing to go through a whole bunch of up-and-down just to reach their destination when they have something more straightforward. For three, Nostrand Avenue trains will already be handling Manhattan-bound crowds, whereas the buses are far less likely to (between Flatbush Avenue and President Street).

Not to let facts get in the way of a good story or anything, but the median wait for the B44SBS is, outside of weekends, almost always greater than that of the subways under Nostrand. Taking the AM rush hour, you're waiting an average of 2.5 mins for the SBS vs 1.6 for the  and 3 for the  (assuming 10tph service level). So you're down 2.1 mins in wait time, but you make that up in (a conservative, given the variability inherent in bus service) +8 in travel time, minus a 2 min transfer time. 

It's also worth noting that Foster Avenue to Lafayette Avenue is far from the only market that would be unlocked by this change, which brings me to my next point.

26 minutes ago, Lex said:

To go further, thanks to how the population is distributed (and how transit is distributed, partially due to how the population is distributed), accessing LIC from points south/west of Fulton Street and Throop Avenue not already served by the  is of least importance.

And why, pray, is that? Is LIC not one of the fastest growing outer borough CBDs? Is economic access not important or something?

1 minute ago, Lex said:

Oh, sure, they'll totally get off the bus to transfer to a train/gun straight for the train, only to have to transfer to another train instead of just using the bus to reach Lafayette Avenue or wherever the hell they're going.😏

1) Crosstown buses do indeed exist -- and I would hope that any plan which added a  branch to the Brighton line would invest further in their frequencies to help fully reap the benefits of the line. 

2) Let's say I live at Nostrand and Foster. Today, to get to Nostrand and Lafayette, I walk over to Rogers and get on the SBS -- that's a half hour trip. With this  branch, you take the  to Franklin (15ish minutes), transfer to the  branch, and take that to Bedford-Nostrand (5ish minutes). That's twenty minutes, and let's throw in 2 minutes for the transfer time. 22 vs 30, take your pick. 

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

I wonder if the provisions were left in place to put in 4 tracks later anyway. The design of some express stations is telling. There is clearly extra space for another track based on the asymmetrical widths of the platforms such as at 145 Street.

This + Fordham + 167 Spur are not provisions. 145 was built the way it was because it would have been ridiculously costly and of questionable value to rearrange the structural members coming from the 4 track upper level so that the middle track on the 3 track lower level could be perfectly centered. Fordham has its strange shape because of the Grand Concourse underpass that dips down at that point, and 167 Spur just sort of...exists in a convenient location to store Yankees trains, which is, I assume, why it was built where it is. When they went for 3 tracks on Concourse, they _went for three tracks_ -- look at how the trackage around Bedford Park is designed -- and that's what were stuck with, for better or for worse.

1 hour ago, Lex said:

It may be an okay (at best) alternative to the B48. It'll do precious little for the B44.

There's a good bit of B44 ridership that goes from [points within subway service area along Nostrand] to [points north of EPW]. I'd expect a good bit of that traffic would opt for IRT to this new  branch rather than bus, especially if  transfer is added. 

I think the move when it comes to the shuttle is attaching it to the  itself. Branch Crosstown south of Bedford Nostrand, tunnel down to somewhere between Fulton and Eastern Parkway, and then just reclaim the ROW. Voila, you’ve got yourself a good approximation of the BMT’s crosstown line and in doing so have provided a decent north-south substitute to buses like the 44. 

Yes. A4 track -- the northbound express -- has GT40s from 86th St to 116 St, and then GT35 around the bend to 125. Those indeed do exist for capacity reasons -- under fixed block control, allowing trains to get very fast (especially as they approach high dwell station areas) tends to reduce capacity as your control lines get extremely long, thus requiring slower speeds/ST earlier, etc. CBTC would fix this issue without any capacity penalty and could potentially allow speeds well in excess of 50mph really all the way from 59 to 116 on CPW, but for that we must wait. 

The same is true on Concourse. The R68s are certainly underpowered, and have chronic issues when it comes to hill climbing, but that whole line is slathered in GTs -- two shots and one shots alike. What's interesting from a historical perspective is that many portions of Concourse express actually once had slower time speeds than they do today; a lot of the speed issues there (on a relative level, not an absolute level) are thanks to operator variability, signal positioning -- north of 145, there are some nasty GTs that hide behind curves -- car equipment power and signal reliability. 

There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the ! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the  to BPB 19/5.