LGA Link N Train

42 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Then you lose all local service from Queens Plaza. You'd force a horrible backtrack of a transfer (either forcing a transfer at W4, or Jackson backwards).

This right here is why I’m reluctant to support any Deinterlining arrangement for Queens Blvd, and all because the  is 8 cars.
 

  If we were to go with the 8th>53rd>QBLocal; 6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement, then that means that either the  would have to be split into the  and  again or the BMT Eastern Division would need to be expanded in order to handle 10 car trains. I prefer the latter option but I don’t know how feasible that would be. 
 

  Now on the inverse: if we were to do 8th>53rd>QBExpress; 6th>63rd>QBLocal, then riders between 65th and 36th lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Square. Although Lexington 63rd has an OOS Transfer to Lexington 59th (which isn’t that bad IMO), any QB Local Rider would have to make a Transfer to any nearby Bus Line. Either that or Jackson Heights will be overcrowded, unless you were able to convince some riders to transfer at 7th Avenue-53rd. 
 

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

 Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the  stations.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t the  have to look into Expanding Essex and creating a Bowery-Grand Transfer?

5 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I guess we'll just have to see. I think the  should try a service change for 1 or 2 days, at least to see if the idea works or not. Experiencing something would be much better than being told as it will give people a better understanding of how the service would run if they like the idea or not. Especially around this time would be perfect as COVID hurt ridership.

True, but in the case of DeKalb and the proposal put up by Vanshnookenraggen, the idea would be dependent on adding switches just north of 45th Street. Otherwise, I agree with you on this one.

2 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

As fas as this thread is concerned, I'm going to let the ominous silence of actual TA personnel such as Trainmaster and Bill speak for itself.

You got a fair point

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

You think I didn't actually read any of it? Because I did, there is a reason I asked those questions in the first place because there isn't anything that answers them. I don't think it would matter that much now, I'm mainly just concerned with the 1 con that is on my mind which is West End. I've already talked about it, but now I just don't agree with the idea at all. I don't think it's worth the sacrifice, it's just dragging 1 problem that 1 line had and bringing it to the other. 

Well if you think about it, that 1 con (being that West End would get  Local Service) wouldn't that bad at all because unlike the current Trains Frequencies along West End, with and service being secluded to West End-Broadway Local-Astoria, West End would be recieving an 80% Service increase, which is a lot more service than what the Train currently provides. Also, wait times for an Express Train at 36th Street wouldn't that bad at all.

8 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Theoretically, there's many different reorganizations that could be done with the Southern Division.  The million-dollar question is whether the MTA would even bother doing anything like that.

In other words:

Because if the  wants their services to improve (in addition to having their budget improved), they’re going to HAVE to do something about DeKalb Junction and the services passing through it at some point, whether that be under the current leadership or if a new management team stepped into  leadership.

The REAL million dollar question is “How much will the  save (or potentially gain) from Deinterlining the subway system?” 

9 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

There was only 1 con that I could think of about this. Some of you might not actually think it's bad, but it really is to me and I can say the same to a lot of people I know that have taken the . The rest of this is mainly questions as these aren't cons, but not pros either:

• It's not clear whether or not  trains are still running via Queens Blvd local, but is it? I would assume no because there is no way that the  can be based out of Coney Island Yard now along with every other Broadway trains running if it ran via Astoria. 
• With  trains running full time now, would that mean less trains for  service to run because it's based out of Concourse Yard now?
• Would  trains be running local on 4th Av to help with  service during late nights which would also mean it has to run through Dekalb Av?

1. This is only a portion of something that @vanshnookenraggen and “A320lga” (whom [correct me if I’m wrong] I think is @RR503 here on the forums cause their proposals and ideas are the exact same), given that the  and  would serve West End, I would assume yes. 

2. Not really since the  and  are running on the same corridor for a majority of the time. Vanshnook did mention a deinterlined CPW. So I’d assume the answer is no.

3. There’s no definitive answer but the easiest thing to do IMO is to emulate the current late night  service for the .

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If the  ran via 4th Avenue Express, riders would likely still bail on the  at 36th or Atlantic. Though they would have the option of transferring at DeKalb for the .

Atlantic would be worse off if the  were the Brighton services versus if the  were the Brighton services. Few riders want to deal with the  via Montague and Lower Manhattan, and if that's the only choice at DeKalb, it's not much of a choice.

note taken, although with a hypothetical  swap at DeKalb, I'd personally make the  a full time route, but then making the  a full time route would make more sense given that its been serving Brighton for years. But then, how would this all factor in if Phase 3 of SAS is complete as its currently planned?

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Brighton Riders perfer the Broadway lines, and wouldn't be losing any 6th Av service. 4th Av lines have the  to go to Broadway and the transfer at DeKalb. 

While that is true, if Brighton were to serve soley 6th Avenue service, they'd still maintain access to Broadway at DeKalb (and Atlantic to a lesser extent), there's also the claim that Broadway and 6th Avenue  stations are close to each other  (with the exception of 14th), but there's no point in starting a debate that's been discussed multiple times before

26 minutes ago, R68ACTrain said:

What is the point of the having the  on Brighton? There's already a service on Brighton to Broadway, while there's going to need one on 4th Avenue.

 

To deinterline DeKalb Junction. Meaning that trains stop crossing in front of each other in junctions so that more trains can be scheduled along certain corridors. I brought up sending the  via Brighton as a response to someone’s comment. It’s not something that I would personally do. If it were up to me, I’d make all 4th Avenue service Broadway and All 6th Avenue service on Brighton ONLY IF bringing the signals and equipment (and dispatching) up to date prove to be not enough to mitigate the bottleneck at DeKalb, since it’s not one that we can easily eliminate. 

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

FYI taking of parkland in NYS requires an act of the legislature, and even in that case requires replacement of parkland. That entire rail line is now a park.

(It, like most other LIRR lines of that vintage, also ran back in a time when Queens was mostly farmland, and there aren't really activity centers along that route. In fact I would say that the Kissena Park corridor usually runs through the quietest parts of the streets it intersects.)

Ahh I see. Thanks for pointing out the part I highlighted in bold. I did intend to keep the line underground as to not interfere with the parkland at a large degree.

Also, seeing that the Kissena Park corridor is one of the Quietest corridors, I see now that it’s not as good of an idea as I thought it was. So with that being the case, I have a question for both you and @Armandito:

If a Northern Blvd Line ended at Flushing-Main Street to provide a transfer with the  and LIRR, where would be the next best place to extend it?
 

Backtracking the converstion a bit, I think if a hypothetical Northern Line were built to end at Flushing-Main Street, it could continue down Kissena Blvd and the former Northeast LIRR Line before ening at Springfield along the Horace Harding. (i'm just brainstorming so don't take this as an official proposal)

On 9/23/2020 at 6:42 AM, mrsman said:

Yes, in a way I am ridding the Broadway line of Downtown service as the plan is to have all Montague tunnel trains ride up the 8th Ave local line.  All Broadway service (both local and express) will run to the Manhattan Bridge South tracks. This necessarily means that both the local and the express tracks will each run at half-capacity.

I mean, you could rebuild and reactivate the City Hall Lower Level if you plan to route 8th Avenue service through Montague. This way, you don't interfere with the express services on Broadway.

Is there a reason why the  doesn't run express service along the Brighton Line during the weekends? Cause after hearing about the G.O. with Trains being rerouted via Brighton Express, it got me wondering if the BMT, NYCTA or the  ever ran a Brighton Express service on weekends.

10 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As far as QBL service via Broadway IMO I would return the to Astoria and run the to Forest Hills. Before people cry about yard access the Bay Ridge and Sea Beach combination would mitigate that problem.

If I'm reading this correctly, the  wouldn't be altered in this swap that you propose?

...comiing to think of it, that's actually not a bad idea (albiet, it doesn't solve the main issue with Broadway which is that merge at 34th, but I still like it)

7 minutes ago, junjun441 said:

Great catch! I’m wondering why it’s being transferred.

Thanks! If I'm beinghonest with you, it was headed towards Manhattan but I have no clue about where it went after that. Proably towards Nassau would be m best guess

I was at Jay Street-MetroTech with 2 friends of mine yesterday and while waiting for a Bay Ridge bound Train, we caught a 143 heading towards Manhattan. It was really unexpected.

They're not my best photos but it was still pretty unexpected

Literally seconds after an  train left Jay Street (Lawrence Street), a NIS 143 passed by. I happened to be with 2 friends of mine and we all took photos of it. It was a really unexpected catch.

55 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Personally I think it would be more beneficial to have  along 4th Avenue than just at DeKalb, because then more riders would have direct access to Broadway and 6th over a longer stretch of route. 

This may sound a bit silly, but would it be ideal to swap the and  route designations to keep some sort of familiaraity amongst riders?

To get an idea of what I'm saying is to have the following:

- ,  and  serve 4th Avenue

- Yellow  and  aling Brighton

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/vehicles/news/21154981/ne-big-kawasaki-customer-says-current-and-future-contracts-are-in-jeopardy?fbclid=IwAR17JrwNa6kMfsn1VRsFzeWhjC2uldHuv21s4ih8L_3hm_v94BQrAqUytBU

 

Not sure of this article was already posted elsewhere on the forum but it is R211 related.

 

After reading this, I hope that we get the base order at the very least as it should be enough to replace all remaining R32's. Maybe if we're lucky, we could get the R211T's if those 2 Open Gangway sets prove to be successful

55 minutes ago, Armandito said:

I like this proposal a lot. So Ima break it down in the best way I can. 

1. I like the addition of adding a yard near Linden Place and 20th Avenue. I don't recall anyone ever proposing a yard there, so kudos to you on that idea! Although, I would adjust the track layout as to how trains will enter/exit the Yard. I'd have the inerlocking layout to resemble something similar to Forest Hills/71st and Kew Gardens where the tracks to enter the yard are in between the other tracks.

2. I would space out the stops along Northern Blvd. I'd shave off 62nd, 102/103rd, and 156/158. All of the other stops are fine. 

3. for 50th Street, I would Ommit the 10th Avenue stop in favor of having your line running south along 10th Avenue in case a 10th Avenue Line comes around.

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

Your stops along Northern Boulevard are too many and too closely spaced together. Even if the IND were to have already built a Northern Boulevard subway to Bayside, the stops would be more widely spaced out, therefore mirroring today's trend of faster local-only service as opposed to adding in an express alongside it. My H train proposal does just that, and this service is its own route that doesn't interline with any other existing services: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.76102947828557%2C-73.82188059522302&z=14

 

I would advise adding an additonal stop between the BQE and Junction Blvd just so that things could be a bitmore evenly spaced out

What are some stations that see some of the longest Dwell Times? The only ones I can think of are the following:

Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue Platforms

74th Street-Broadway Train Platforms

Queensboro Plaza

Grand Central-42nd Street  Platforms

Grand Central Platform

How can I expand this list?

4 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Included in my LaGuardia subway proposal is a connection to the 63rd Street Line for a potential SAS service to Manhattan and possibly Brooklyn (via Fulton Street Local). Note that this would require relocating the Queensbridge station to the other side of 21st Street:

I gotta say, your (X) proposal is pretty iteresting, however I do have to agree with eveyone else here that sending the  and  to LaGuardia is a better option. Also coming to think of it, is it even possible to even get the Crosstow Line past 41st Avenue? I ask that because of the LIRR Tunnels for East SIde Access that are right beneath the . I don't really know how deep they are. 

6 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

Yeah I believe it is due to the bridge being too low. The QT86 is proposed to run down Yellowstone Blvd, so sending the QT87 down the same route as the current Q23 would both be too close to the QT86 and have too many turns. By routing the bus over to Ascan then 71 Ave after the private neighborhood, it would split the current Q23 ridership area from just 69 Ave to two different routes.

Makes sense as to why'd they do that. However, I don't know if the height of the Bridge at 71st/Continental is too low (IIRC, the height of the bridge's underpass was like 10'5" last time I checked), but that would be depend on the height of the buses themselves.

6 hours ago, MTA Dude said:

I have it running from Kew Gardens and going down 71st Ave, but are buses too tall for the LIRR bridge there? Is that why they have it running on Ascan? Also, what's the deal with the private neighborhood there?

Well you kinda answered your own Question there. Forest Hills Gardens is a gated community, so to me it doesn't come as a surprise that they'd be against it. I also wonder if the consulted with the people that run the private neighborhood to have a route even running on Ascan.