paulbyron

6 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

I saw that same train, it probably was the train that hit a bicycle in Brooklyn between euclid and Broadway junction.

 

Yikes. Didn’t know that happened.

I just saw an 8-car set of R32s ending with 3781 out of service on the northbound express track at 42-PABT. Could they be going into retirement at 207?

9 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Oh, I didn't know. In that case why not run it via the  track during the non-rush with its own station at Van Dam St, then splitting off. Also, its possible to run trains just via surface streets to the Greenpoint Av Station. Thoughts?

I think it would have to run on surface streets. Also, the  is only one track; you'd need 2.

34 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Why is it impossible to run on the ?

Freight runs at night, this would not run overnight

It would be capacity-constraining for both lines if it were on the same tracks, and there would be no space to make the el wider.

17 hours ago, Jova42R said:

True. Could there be a light rail along a similar route?

I think light rail runs into most of the same problems, unless it were to run on streets, in which case why bother?

6 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

LIGHT RAIL LINE

 Lower Montauk Local / Queensboro Bridge / York Av Local / 96 St Crosstown

 Lower Montauk Express / Queensboro Bridge / York Av Local / 96 St Crosstown

 stops are bolded

s stop at all stops

 

96 St/Broadway

CPW

Madison Av

Lexington Av

2 Av

via York Av

91 St

86 St

79 St

72 St

65 St

60 St

57 St-1 Av

Queensboro Plaza

via the  el, then connecting to the Lower Montauk Branch

Court Sq

Greenpoint Av

Haberman - 43 St

49 St

Maspeth Av

Grand Av

Flushing Av

60 St

Fresh Pond Rd

73 St

Atlas Park - 80 St

88 St

Woodhaven Blvd

Union Tpke

84 Av

121 St

via the LIRR line to a new platform at

Jamaica LIRR

Thoughts? @paulbyron @T to Dyre Avenue 

I think the part where it runs via the  is impossible. I think a lot of this is good, but why not terminate in Midtown and skip York/96 (or build as separate lines)? Also, IIRC, the Lower Montauk Branch is still used for the odd freight train.

22 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

What street would be best to get from Seaman to Bway? Because that around-the-Allen Hospital bridge won't hold 2 tracks. Would it just be better to make that  tunnel into a 4 track line, and run s via the MNR line, then enter the ?

I think that the best option is to do nothing; service is fine as-is. But if the  had major repairs needed, for example, it could probably just be cut back to 207 or 215 and your  plan could go ahead.

17 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Could you run trains down Seaman to 207th? My only thought is then you'd need to rebuild 207th station...

No way in hell. I live on a cross street less than a block from Seaman, and that's TOTALLY impossible. I think the best option would be to run it either up and over a lot of buildings (most of which are about 7 stories, so probably impossible) or to dig it into a subway and under the river.

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

It could be straight from the HH Bridge to 10th, going around Allen, but if you did that, then why not just rebuild the Bway Bridge. Another option is to have the NB track run around allen on a bridge over the water, and the SB track to run via Isham to 10th. There'd be a stop at 218, then no stops to 207, as the  would stop at 215. This would also enable s to keep their turning-around spot at 215th, they'd turn at 218th. Thoughts @paulbyron @T to Dyre Avenue?

Rebuilding the Broadway Bridge shouldn't be under consideration, ever. In addition, any track over Isham should also not be under consideration because it would necessitate demolition of a large swath of Inwood Hill Park. Both would get HUGE resistance from the local community (myself included), probably unlike anything else, anywhere in the city, ever.

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

 

Here's the map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1818rFlNu8c46r1VTq8g4oPb7PSbxKcgn&usp=sharing

The  would keep the same stops, except 215 St, that would be relocated to 216th and 9th, but keeping the free  connection.

The  would run on the current pedestrian path on the lower level, and the current side shoulder on the upper level. The other side of the bridge would be converted to the pedestrian path. The  would be fully on a new viaduct

Could this work? @T to Dyre Avenue @paulbyron

 

I thought you were proposing for it to curve across the Broadway Bridge. Under my new understanding, there would be a lot of sharp curves across the route. In addition, 218 St is wholly unsuitable for subway usage - it is surprisingly steep.

By the way, I realised my post had the same comments twice. Sorry about that!

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

If they reconfigure Kings Hwy and Ditmars, then I'd like to see the following:

• All rush hour s become s
• All rush hour s run via the  to Kings Hwy
•  service is expanded outside of rush hour
  • all s run express to Kings Hwy
  • some s continue express to Av X
• One rush hour  becomes an  after Church, and runs to CI
• All non-rush s terminate at 18 Av

Thoughts? @Union Tpke @P3F @RR503

No way there are enough s to cover running all rush-hour s express, especially without Bergen St lower level.

On 2/24/2020 at 8:43 PM, Jova42R said:

 Battery Park City to Windsor Terrace

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

@paulbyron this is one of my other Light Rail proposals

Looks cool! But I think the 's highly limited budget could be used better on other light rail routes not already mostly served by subway service.

5 hours ago, Jova42R said:

 Light Rail

Manhattan-Brooklyn Link via Manhattan Bridge

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZAU-j7StbmExUk68TZhUjRRIGdIyO511&usp=sharing

Thoughts?

It would have track connections with the  on the Bridge, however only work trains could use those, as the  tracks would not have third rail (POSSIBLY on the bridge, the  would add a third rail.

@paulbyron this is another tram proposal that I support!

This looks cool, but I feel this is a little bit wasteful with the 's limited budget, as the route is mostly already served by subways.

45 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Extension of :

• 207 St (current terminal)
  • new tunnel under Bway
• 215 St
  • Under Harlem River
  • Then above ground onto the Putnam Branch
• 229 St
• 234 St
• 240 St
• Van Cortlandt Park - 248 St
  • this would be a new station in the park, with a new elevated bridge to Broadway
  • splits to Getty Sq Branch here
• 253 St
  • new station on top of HH Pkwy, bridge to Bway
  • after this station, the line goes on a new elevated viaduct
• Mosholu Av
• 261 St
  • termination station, new yard in VC Park, switches south of station

Also under this plan, the  would be rerouted

• 215 St
• 225 St
  • new viaduct over the MNR line
• Spuyten Duyvil
  • via a new viaduct to
• Kappock St
  • via new viaduct over HH Pkwy
• 232 St
• 239 St
• 246 St
• 252 St
  • termination station, yard would still be 240th, switches north of 239th station to the yard.

Thoughts? @Union Tpke wasn't this proposed before?

I think this is a cool plan with the , but I think the engineering with the  is totally impossible for 2 main reasons. First, the Broadway Bridge would be incredibly difficult to rebuild with a curve for the upper level. You could avoid this by building the curve before the bridge, but this runs into the other main problem. The Allen Hospital is right there, and it would block any development as it's (as far as I know) one of the major hospitals in the area.

Just now, Lawrence St said:

Tell the station agent or if you have twitter, tweet it.

I’ll DM it to the .

Just now, Lawrence St said:

Did you report it so it can get cleaned?

How should I do that? It was at the NE corner on 25 St at 23 St  and .

Someone’s vandalised an OMNY reader with Sharpie saying “FTP”. (The reader still works.) While I agree with the message, their methods are appalling.

7 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Me too! SO many European Cities have trams. Thoughts on the Red Hook Proposal?

I don’t really have any thoughts on that, as I rarely go to that area. But isn’t most of it just barren industrial wasteland?

17 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Tram Network:

 96 St Crosstown / York Av Local / Queensboro Bridge

• 96 St - Broadway
• 96 St - CPW
• 5 Av
• Park-Lexington Avs
• 2 Av
• 92 St - York Av M86+SBS+
• 86 St M86+SBS+
• 79 St M79+SBS+
• 72 St
• 66 St
• 60 St
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• Queens Plaza

 10 Av Local / 34 St Crosstown / Park Av Local / Queensboro Bridge / Roosevelt Island

• Abingdon Sq M14A+SBS+
• 14 St-8 Av  M14+SBS+
• 23 St M23+SBS+
• 28 St
• 34 St - 10 Av - Hudson Yards  M34+SBS+
• 7-8 Avs - Penn Station  M34+SBS+
• 6 Av - Herald Sq  M34+SBS+
• Park Av
• 42 St - Grand Central
• 48 St
• 53 St
• 57 St - Lexington Av
• 57 St-1 Av
  • QB Brg
• 11 St - LI City
• QB Plaza
• 36 Av-21 St
  • RI Brg
• Roosevelt Island - Main St
• Roosevelt Island - Tramway

 and (TX) 

 Red Hook Local / Downtown Local

(TX) Red Hook Local / Downtown Express

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19TDLNqNtF21VKb70gFefV5e3ai0u0tZy&usp=sharing

Thoughts on these?

I would love to see trams all over the city! Ideally, all major bus routes not suited to subway development would be converted.

5 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Because of the G.O having no trains running between Atlantic Avenue and Prospect Park. Those  Trains are scheduled layups at Coney Island Yard which is why they're running to Bay Parkway.

Sorry, but what does GO mean?

3 hours ago, Jemorie said:

You realize in general that the  is still half R32s though. Nothing new.

What I was trying to communicate in the quoted post in the post you quoted is that (in my experience) there is little rhyme or reason as to whether a given run will be R32 or R179, and often varies day-to-day. This one, however, has been consistently R32.

There’s an R32  train that has departed 42 St - PABT southbound at about 8:03 for the past few days. If anyone wants to railfan, that’s probably a good place to do so.

6 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@Jemorie, I would be very surprised if no one in all the years since the R46s were GOH’ed has reported problems with the side destination signs. I would certainly be surprised if no crew members operating them have ever done so. But certainly if I see an R46 with blank or incorrect destination signs, I will report it. 

Regular  rider here. I’ve seen plenty of trains with destination signs hopelessly wrong, from blank ones to wrong information to large amounts of burnt-out (I presume) lightbulbs, which make the sign impossible to read.

58 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Are there specific reasons as to why the  runs to JC while the  goes to 179? 

I think part of the reasoning is due to terminal capacity. JC can only turn about 12tph.

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

BRT could work. I thought that you were talking about a local bus. Another option is to use the siding at Riverdale MNR, revamp it, and run trains from Riverdale, via WSA, to Penn Station, stopping at Dyckman. Another stop, theoretically, could be 181 St, it has a bridge over the ROW that connects to 181 St.

So,

• Option 1: BRT:
  • 252 St/HHP
  • 246 St/HHP
  • 239 St/HHP
  • 236 St/HHP
  • 232 St/HHP
  • Dyckman/Broadway
  • Sherman/Broadway
  • Fairview/Broadway
  • 190/Ft Wash
  • 187/Pinehurst
  • 181/ Ft Wash
  • 178/Ft Wash
  • 176/Pinehurst
• Option 2, shuttle train via WSA
  • Riverdale MNRR
  • NEW Spuyten Duyvil Station MNRR
  • Dyckman
  • 181
  • 125
  • 62
  • Penn

Thoughts?

I like the idea of the BRT. I'm not sure that that specific route is best, but I'd love to see BRT in my neighbourhood. I don't think that just running shuttle trains on the West Side Line would be best, as I think it'd be better to run some Hudson Line MNR trains into the space freed up by ESA at Penn Station. This could both add service on the Hudson Line and on the Harlem and New Haven Lines into the new slots at GCT.

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

true, however a light rail would NOT be affected by traffic delays on the HH Parkway. And, also, theoretically, you could use new tracks in the Amtrak ROW from the HH Bridge to Dyckman. Light rail is also cheap to build compared to a subway.

I can see the benefit with regards to traffic delays. But couldn't you just build a bus lane protected by barriers? It would be impossible to build along the Amtrak ROW for two reasons. First, there's a huge slope from the bridge to the ROW, and second, it would be impossible to switch from the Amtrak ROW to Dyckman St without entirely tearing up the small bridge across the road or closing the main entrance to Dyckman Fields, a very popular area of Inwood Hill Park. While light rail is cheap compared to subway, who's asking for a subway? Buses would be nearly free, as almost no infrastructure would be required compared to light rail.

Just now, Jova42R said:

It would be a light rail system. The only dedicated ROW is on the HH Bridge. This would be a faster alternative than buses - the  currently would take about twice as long as this.

Well, why not run buses along the proposed route? It would definitely be faster, as you point out. I just don't think all of the effort to build light rail would be worthwhile.

53 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

How expensive would it be to make a light rail in the service road/median of the HH Parkway in Riverdale, then link it to Manhattan? (See map below)

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqspe1rMgN28JdgoqhpzHN7Qef81COTv&usp=sharing

Would this be feasible?

I live in Inwood, and this proposal would require MASSIVE construction unless traffic would be allowed on tracks, in which case, why not just use buses? Most of the streets (in Inwood) are only two lanes wide.