Theli11

3 hours ago, Reptile said:

have a loose plan for Second Avenue Subway service so I think I will just lay it out here.

runs local from Fordham Plaza/3rd Ave to the main trunk.

runs express from LGA on the Astoria Line, and replaces service to the main trunk using a new connection with the 60th street tunnel.

(Y) runs on the Queens Bypass replacing service to Rosedale and the will be moved to Hillside Av, which will be extended. I am uncertain about this because now JFK loses direct connection to TSQ and PABT but it is much faster. So theoretically transfer time would be shorter.

 

Southern end, it seems connections to Northern Brooklyn or Fulton Street will be best as DeKalb Ave is too stuffed up as it is. Adding a deinterlining solution does not help when it is just taken away

However there needs to be a way to connect to Atlantic Ave. The sheer amount of connections there would near-eradicate the issue of SAS being isolated, along with the 51st street station.

60th St is already packed as it is, you'll have to create a new tunnel, and (Y) doesn't need to replace service if it's going on the Queens Bypass. The works fine, and you're forcing people to transfer onto another interlined line . It won't make it much faster since it's running on the 2nd Av and not on the West Side. You'll make passengers transfer to the (Y) at a long 51 St, or at Forest Hills/Grand St

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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. 

I really prefer the 8th > 53 > QBL; 6th > 63 > QBE solution. I think the will likely be the weak link, and the  should come back and fill in that 6th Av local capacity during Weekdays only. (Likely going to be 12/9/6). My MAIN problem is the terminals, and what train terminates where. If you have trains would likely have to do some weird terminal stuff. I don't think express trains and local trains can terminate and go through Forest Hills with the same service to Jamaica, that'll have to change or be merged with service or service, but not both.

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

One can keep providing the  without reducing 6th Ave or QBL service.  (Of course, Culver service is limited by the number of  trains provided).  Run both  and  as 6th Ave local - QBL locals and provide instead  and  services as the QBL express.  Whether and  continue to the Cranberry tunnel as an 8th Ave express or terminate at WTC as an 8th Ave local is dependent upon what happens along CPW.  

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 carries over to any peak direction train, namely the in the Bronx, and the / split in Brooklyn/Queens. Personally I can't wait to hear Vans' IND deinterlining ideas.

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

I like vanschnookenraggen's plan, since it is very streamlined.  You can read more of my comments on his site.

The one hurdle I see is convincing the West End riders that this is better for them than a direct express, which they will be losing.  On an ops basis, it certainly is better, since they wait less for a proposed  and then transfer to a  or  at 36th - but with all deinterlining plans the "cost" is that the West End riders will need a transfer, when before they could ride directly on the  , albeit a less frequent  train than what is proposed here.

The basic truth of any deinterlining is a trade-off:  More frequent trains and fewer delays due to merging in exchange for an additional likely transfer for a set of passengers.  I think it is a good trade-off, but many others do not.

Yes but the deinterlining with transfers now is going to be different with transfers later. More than likely, a  or train will come within 2 minutes of an or train. It's not a long wait, and not as bad as it would be now. 

18 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm pretty sure the  and  are serving Astoria, but this would basically mean that there is no need to have  trains around at all as it literally duplicates everything about this version of the . Even with the  terminating at Bay Parkway, it's just the  basically short-turning like how the  short-turns at Kings Highway. Either that or just completely get rid of the  entirely as people in Astoria have gotten used to having the .

I think the way that the can become its own thing is by ending at Ditmars Blvd, and the turning off right either right before Astoria Blvd right after Astoria Blvd or right after the Astoria terminal, similar to the , where the  and the serves the Astoria/Harlem riders and is going to be lighter going into Broadway and the and serves the heavier Bronx/LaGuardia riders. 
Astoria's lettering isn't really set in stone since all 4 routes on Broadway have been there through history.

46 minutes 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. 

It does actually answers them though, there's a / switch from 59 - 145 St and the is running on Astoria/LaGuardia with a new yard in the old Con Ed parking lot (in vanshook's)   post the yard if the is no longer running out of it. 

To clarify, the Coney Island Yard would have the:  and trains running out of it. The will be in the Jamaica Yard.  (and some  trains in the Concourse). would have space in that new yard, and you can even run some  in that new Astoria Yard.

10 minutes ago, Reptile said:

This would make sense for some massive 10-track Second System type proposal but the Dekalb Junction is an immediate issue.

@R10 2952's comment doesn't even make sense in this topic for Proposals, that statement was unnecessary, pointless, fruitless, irrelevant, stupid, unproductive, and futile. 

13 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

The idea isn't really too far fetched and I can see where this person is coming from. I can see how this scenario benefits a lot of riders, however there are a few things I would like to point out from this, it's already stated out, but it's concerns that I've experienced and would like to talk about regardless:

Pros:

• The biggest one, I'm going to get it out of the way as it's a very big pro, Bay Ridge riders have access to both Express and Local services with the  running local from Bay Ridge-95th St to 36th St then switching over express before hitting 36th St running express the whole way into Manhattan as well as 6th Av express. Not only that, they can get access to Midtown much faster because of it, huge plus.
• West End finally getting Peak Express service once again, the last time this happened was when the . Call me out if I'm wrong, but last time I rode on West End when the  was around, both the  and  ran express so I do hope in this scenario, both the  and  can run express.

Cons:

• West End losing express service on 4th Av and into Manhattan. I've lived on West End my whole life and having express service on 4th Av and 6th Av was really good for me, I never had the need to transfer either. With this, it forces me to transfer to either the  or  (doesn't matter which since same destination regardless) which also adds waiting time. I've been forced to ride the  train when  trains got delayed (which happens way too many times) and I felt like my travel time had gotten longer because of it. Especially going to Manhattan where most of the time, I'm travelling to midtown and I'd be forced to ride the  to then have to transfer. This proposal does a lot of good, but ends up actually screwing another line in the process.

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?

Quote

To achieve optimal performance more deinterlining will be needed on the Broadway and 6th Ave Lines. The N will be rerouted to 96th St-2nd Ave with the Q and could even be eliminated for a service instead. The A and B trains will swap along Central Park West so that B/D trains will stay on the express track the entire way between 145th St and 36th St in Brooklyn. R trains will move to Astoria along with the W

Quote

Service Increase

The Bay Ridge Line will see an increase of up to 50% over existing levels of service and riders will save 5 minutes each way to Atlantic Ave:

Present: R trains at 10tph, 28 minutes local 95th St to Atlantic Ave

Proposed: B trains at 15tph, 23 minutes express 95th St to Atlantic Av

The Brighton Beach Line will see and increase of up to 66.6% over existing levels of service:

Present: B and Q trains at a combined 18tph

Proposed N and Q trains at a combined 30tph

The Sea Beach Line will see and increase of up to 66.6% over existing levels of service:

Present: N trains at 9tph

Proposed: D trains at 15tph

The West End Line will see and increase of up to 80% over existing levels of service:

Present: D trains at 10tph, 12 minutes express 36th St to Atlantic Av

Proposed: R trains at 18tph, 15 minutes local 36th St to Atlantic Av.

Quotes from: http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/

20 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So what runs on Sea Beach or to 95th St - if DeKalb is de-interlined and  doesn't run on weekends?

(No peeking at @vanshnookenraggen's proposal - which puts eliminating  as an option - as well as making it .)

As far as I'm concerned, the plan was putting 6th Av service on the express and the on the local to Bay Ridge. isn't running because there's no need for Brighton Express service.

4 minutes ago, Deucey said:

What would run to Astoria if  was eliminated instead of ?

The would run the full route from Astoria - Bay Ridge, it'll just be the and trains late nights.

4 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Except for the fact that  and  would have to run full-time* to service each BMT Southern line, I don't see why Broadway and 6th Av services couldn't be de-interlined in Brooklyn.

(*Unless  disappeared on weekends and  replaced it to 96th/2nd.)

Or the inverse and the  just doesn't run on weekends. Do you really need a replacement for 96 St Service?

1 hour ago, ActiveCity said:

There should be bellmouths east of the 96 St Station on the Second av line for a Queens extension, it'll serve the South side of Randall's Wards Islands, Give Queens commuters a faster ride to the Upper East Side, and serve areas with limited transit options. This new subway line will run under Ditmars Blvd as a two track subway line with a transfer to the and at Astoria-Ditmars Blvd. After leaving Ditmars Blvd, it'll continue onto Astoria Blvd as a 4 track subway line. Once the line reaches 112 St, another bellmouth should be added east of the proposed 112 St-34 Ave station for the (P) line, that'll terminate at Mets Willets Point with a transfer to the Lines as well as a provision to Whitestone, while the line continues south under 112 St as a 2 track subway up to Roosevelt Ave with a transfer to the and a future provision that'll run along the Grand Central Parkway to the Long Island Expressway similar to the 1968 Program for Action, this is where and trains would meet up to Kissena Blvd. In this situation, I propose that a new Pink (P) train would be the local service while the train would be the express service.

 

Proposed (P) Route:

125 St Crosstown Line: 

With stops at Broadway, Central Park West, Malcom X Blvd, Lexington Avenue, 2 Avenue and the North side of Randall's Wards Islands. (With transfers to the A,B,C,D,T,1,2,3,4,5,6,9 lines)

Whitestone: (Not sure where to align it yet)

 

Highly Recommend Route: 

Brighton Lcl, Broadway Exp, 2 Ave, Astoria Blvd Express, Grand Central Parkway, and Long Island Expressway.

 

IND/BMT Ditmars Blvd Line: (P) & Lines

21 St, Astoria-Ditmars Blvd (31 St), Steinway St, 48 St.

 

IND/BMT Astoria Blvd Line: (P) & Lines

Express Stops:

74 St, 94 St, 108 St

Local Stops:

82 St, 88 St, 101 St

 

IND/BMT 112 St Line: (P) Lines

34 Av, Roosevelt Avenue (112 St)

 

Any questions regarding this post is highly appreciated 👍 🤯

I'll bite this one, being extended too far from 2nd Avenue is something I'm against (also who wants service to Wards?). Maybe if the  was extended I'd be fine with it since it's going close to it's current route (via a lower level). Grand Central Parkway/LIE being used as a train roue is questionable, and I'm sure that @engineerboy6561 can clarify if GCP is a right placement for it. [Elevated or not?] I'd rather a 2nd Av route that's straight through 125th St and 3rd Av, Bronx. I think that a separate route can replace the for the Queens route. As for your (P) route, there doesn't need to be a route from 125th St to that part of Queens unless it goes to the airport. (or straight to it via Astoria). Northern Blvd is probably my favorite proposal so far which is a couple pages back (go back ~10 pages for the proposal of the line).
 

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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

While you are correct, we have stated that the Broadway Services are a better option than 6th Av because of the residents and what they've always had which is the train on the line. No point in changing it now. This is a conversation that happens at least once a month on this particular topic, probably because people have many ideas about it. 

33 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.

 

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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. 

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. 

On 10/13/2020 at 2:21 PM, Vulturious said:

I know those of you are going to say otherwise, but I strongly feel by the time all the R179's are back in service, the R211A will already be in revenue testing. But that is just anyone's guess at this point.

It's just as likely for either cars to come into service for. 55% prediction, I think that the R179 will come first because the R211A will likely be delayed back a little bit.

8 minutes ago, Armandito said:

We'll have to stretch our patience to the limits unfortunately, because the R211s will be delayed in their deliveries AFAIK.

I do believe that they'll have delivered by this time next year. Of course, there's still the R179s but those are horrible. We're really just waiting for either R179s to come back with adequate service or R211s to go into service. 

31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Then that’s an issue with the R46 train cars’ brakes. If that’s the reason the MTA would give to justify not running two Broadway services to 96th, well, that’s kind of a lame excuse (but then again, it is the MTA we’re talking about here). Shouldn’t the subpar brakes be addressed, instead of using them as an excuse to continue running an inferior service pattern on Broadway (i.e., the  switching from express to local to get to Astoria)? And the R46s, which may be kept in service a bit longer than some of us might like, will not be in service forever.

I really don't think that R46s will last long on the Broadway Express anyways. By the time the R211 comes, the R160s should be going back to the and lines. If you need more cars, put remaining R46s on the . 

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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)

I only fear that there's going to be less  local service, though that can be solved with  service. Personally, you don't need service on Astoria, if the  is going to run to it and you can have the  go to 96 St. 

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The strangest (funny/not funny) part to some of us older folks is the assumptions some people are making about service reductions. As one of my coworkers pointed out he can do a 40% service cut in the IRT by reusing our old work programs from the late ‘70s - mid ‘80s era. No elimination of lines or any stations needed. He laughed at some posts he glanced at and reminded me that our mentor called some old time posters “ my “ little Lionels when I joined this site years ago. Seems like many people ignore the terms frequency and headway. Maybe some of us should rethink and revise some of these ideas. Just a thought. Carry on.

I don't think people realize why trains like the or even the * are important to service. I think the only elimination I'd agree with is of the  because screw that skip stop train just make it express. There always needs to be adequate replacement, and with and trains, there aren't any adequate replacements for daytime service without screwing over any other route. I've said this earlier, any service cuts will look like what happened during the middle (or beginning depending on how long this goes on) of COVID. Also what would the 40% cut in the IRT look like now?

52 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Oh, okay. I assumed with the mention of cutting the , it would be a Covid-related service cut. We have had quite a lot of postings about that. But I agree making the  local is unnecessary and will hurt more than help. For what it’s worth, they did get away with the  running express in Manhattan (between Canal and 34th, leaving only  trains running local there) from Memorial Day to June 8th when the  was restored. 

But for a normal, non-Covid service proposal to untangle DeKalb, as I’ve stated up-thread, it would be to do Broadway express to/from Brighton (  express to Brighton Beach,  current service) and 6th Avenue expresses to Sea Beach and West End (  to Sea Beach,  current service).

Not just the local, but the via Montague so it could run local.. Whole idea was a mess.

Manhattan Bridge lines, CPW* and QBL all need to be detangled within the B-Division. 

Queens Blvd needs that train off the line. My solution is to have 25% of  trains go to Sea Beach and end at 86 St, while the rest go to Bay Ridge.
Now the  will end at Astoria and  trains will end at 96 St (which will just make it the  but full time, and  can probably just split frequencies (or just more locals than expresses) since they're running on the same track from 96 to Prospect Park). and Queens Blvd will have and trains. this way trains run local, that have the same frequency as the *, run express while  trains run express and  trains run local via 63 St. 

*For CPW, any plan that's put in place [  express, local being the best possible one without any Northern terminals changing] would either lengthen the  or  trains. Of course, the  would have to be express in the bracketed scenario, unless you make a switch to the express tracks pre-50th st, then the  can be the local line (and more reliable.) service would be the express until Hoyt where they split into current day service. You'll probably be able to run a lot more service since there are less merges between , , , ,  trains. Whatever plan in place, it might screw some passengers over, while helping others. 


 

12 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

But how would it get across the Long Island Sound? A tunnel is out of the question, and another bridge would not be the best either.

How is a tunnel/another bridge out of the question?

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 Av and Park Av

6 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 Av and 6 Av

8 Av: at 8 Av and 9 Av

Clinton-42 St: at 44 St and 42 St

I only agree with Lexington/50th but if you're going to spread it across 3 blocks, make it Lexington, 3rd and 2nd Avenues. 
6th-Rock... 6th and 7th would be better, but it leaves a gap from Lexington to 6th, which is why i think 8th Av should have an exit at 7th Av, so 6th and 5th can have that exit. 

Clinton - 42 is fine because it doesn't go past that 7 line, and leaves those provisions for later.. working like 8th Av - 14 St.

17 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Eh, now that I look at this more the less I like the plan.

Personally I don't think there should be any stops between the Broadway and Queens Plaza stations, that area isn't particularly far from the subway as it is and the QBL local in that area is not crowded. 

I really do think that any Northern Blvd line should actually have a transfer with the  ; I would like to avoid a Jamaica-like situation where the two lines are annoyingly close to each other and buses have to do all sorts of convoluted routings to connect to both. So in that vein, I would actually turn the Northern line onto Main and keep going down either Main or Kissena to Jamaica. Which has the added benefit of not duplicating the PW as well. If you really need a separate eastern Northern line I would have the  do that.

I kinda agree with you on Main being a better corridor and having it end in Jamaica Center or even just two seperate branches. 

14 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is very aggressive east-west stop spacing in one of the densest parts of the city with the most jobs. 

Honestly there should probably be 9th, 7th, and 5th stations, which is not all that different from the  . 

9th with a transfer to 8th  , 7th with a transfer to   , and 5th can have a Madison Exit.

6 minutes ago, Armandito said:

My plans call for the 8 Av station to have an exit to 9 Av with a new transfer passageway to the trains at Broadway and 7 Av.

I think that's a really long passage way for 8th Av, and if any passengers wanted to get to the  they'd have to walk extra. That passageway would be like a slightly better 2nd Av-Grand Central transfer and could be made better with moving the exit to 7th Av. My two cents.

8 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While I do like the idea for a Northern Blvd subway, do you think Eastern Queens along Northern Blvd can be better served by extending the already-existing  train east from its current terminal at Main Street? It's already there, so when that time comes, we can simply extend it east, and just like that, NE Queens has subway service sooner rather than waiting for the rest of the Northern Blvd Line to be built.

The extension would be a 3-track line out to 162nd Street, and then two tracks from 162nd to Bell Blvd. The stops would be as follows: Parsons Blvd, 149th Street, 162nd Street (express), Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, Bayside-Bell Blvd. At Bell Blvd, Q12 bus service would pick up the slack out to the City Line. At the 162nd Street station, a two track spur would split off and run to a lower level used for relaying trains. For the service pattern, in the peak direction, the  would operate to/from Bell Blvd, while the  would operate express to 162nd Street, and then make the remaining stops to Bell Blvd. In the off-peak, when the  isn't running, the  would serve Bell Blvd. Essentially, the service would be like the  and  to some extent.

IF this were to be made, the should not have to go past Main St since it serves that main line. 

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

How the  line would look on the subway map:

(Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)

I'm assuming that the 8th Av station has a 7th Avenue exit (for the transfers) and the 6th Av station has a 5th Avenue exit, otherwise this is great.

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Some customers do. That’s why we don’t have a  train running from Continental to Metro via the Williamsburg Bridge; instead it’s called the . Thirty years ago, the  proposed extending the then-6th Ave  to 207th St in place of the , which would have been cut back to 168th St and run local in place of the , which would have been cut. But there was community outrage over cutting the  out of Inwood/Washington Heights, and in the end they kept the then-current Central Park West service plan. In past discussions about splitting the , there’s been debate about whether or not the Brooklyn segment should continue to be called R, even if it’s rerouted to Nassau St since it’s always been the R (or RR) since NYCTA implemented the letters J-T for the former BMT lines in the late 1950s. But then, maybe it wouldn’t matter to Bay Ridge/Sunset Park riders.

I meant the comment as in IND and BMT, but i made it too general which is my fault. I usually think of the as 8th/Fulton, as 6th, as Jamaica,  as Brighton, so yeah I get the letters thing. I was saying it wouldn't matter in terms of service not familiarity. 

12 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for eliminating the , I’m not in favor of it either. I wonder if the  would be a easier option for elimination because it runs less frequently (only 6 tph) and there isn’t a single stop on the  line that the  or another train can’t stop at in its place. 

Eliminating the  would make you extend the to Euclid (Which would be pretty bad since it's the most reliable and flexible service on the QBL.) and make the local on CPW (because the  can't handle the line on it's own). This would also make you run the local past 145 St and I'm not exactly sure how that would work in terms of switches. All of this is dependent on whether the runs local on 4th Av or not. If it does run local, you can probably add more service.