mrsman

On 12/28/2021 at 4:49 PM, darkstar8983 said:

I know that this week, subway service was going to be reduced because of staff shortages, but maybe it  would be more practical to have the headways on some lines evened out (as much as possible), because the service is as inconsistent as it has been all year. Example:

Yes, the  is running local (no Skip-stop Express or Broadway-Brooklyn Express) since the  is suspended, but the headways are inconsistent. I thought a dispatcher knew with at least 30 minutes notice how many train crews would be missing, but I could be wrong. The advance notice (even though it may be minutes) can help even out headways  for departures when there are shortages. You'll see on the board:

 - Broad St - 1 min

 - Broad St - 5 min

 - Broad St- 29 mins

*Couldn't the 2nd  train have been held prior to departure to help plug the 24 minute gap?

 

another example:

The  had a 30 minute gap Manhattan-bound during the AM rush towards Harlem, but southbound trips were running on average every 10-12 minutes. Maybe that 30 minute gap could have been plug by having the lead train (prior to the gap) held to just have two 15-minute gaps instead of a 30-minute one. Again, I could be wrong about how evening out headways and trying to make trains as consistent as possible works.

 

Maybe a blanket change could be:

 - every 5 minutes instead of every 3 minutes

/ - every 10-12 minutes instead of every 5-6 mins.

etc.

You are right that if there is any time of emergency that causes the service to be uneven, trains should be held to maintain even frequencies.  With your example, yes it would be better to hold the second train so that the service is every 14 minutes as opposed to a 4 minute gap and then a terrible 24 minute gap.

Holding a train for 14 minutes is harder to do in NY then in most other systems because of the interlining.  Holding a train for 14 minutes could mean that you are now cascading delays on other train lines, like which could cascade delays onto other trains like  and  , and pretty soon the delays could effect the entire train division.

Now if a similar delay were to affect a fully deinterlined line, like ,  ,  , or  it would be fairly easy to do what you suggest.  If  is operating inconsistently, hold some  trains to reduce overall service gaps.  Such "schudule adjustments" are common where one service runs on one track.

As usually happens, posting leads to more ideas.  A plan to maintain QBL-Broadway connection, while eliminating the merge from express to local:

207 - Far Rockaway/Lefferts: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp 

205 - Euclid: Concourse RH Exp - CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl 

JC-WTC: QBL Exp - 53rd St - 8 Av Lcl

BPB/145 - Brighton Beach: Concourse RH Lcl - CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - Brighton Exp 

168 St - CI: CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - Brighton local

 179 - CI:  QBL exp - 53rd St - 6 Av local - Culver

 57 St - Metropolitan:  6 Av local - Myrtle el

 71 Av - Coney Island: QBL local - 63rd - Bway/4 Av Exp vía Sea Beach 

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via West End 

 71 Av - Whitehall:  QBL local - 60th - Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Av local

 Astoria - Bay Ridge: Astoria line - 60th - Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Av local

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

While some areas seem to have improved like Brighton and 6 Av, CPW and 8 Av along with Broadway and 4 Av, there are still areas with interlining that in a way doesn't really have any improvements at least nothing significant.

The  and  running together helps out CPW and 8 Av a lot because there isn't that dumb merge between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts and Canal St. Both are running for a very long stretch together which allows them to increase capacity through Cranberry St tunnel. However, the  doesn't seem to have much improvements because the  is now in Queens. I would also say the same with the . If we focus on the 's side of things, it still has somewhat 3 different merges. 2 times with the  and the . Even during normal hours, the  would still be cutting off the  because it's terminating on the middle track at 145 St. During rush hours service might be running better because the  is running express, but that's only in the peak direction. The  would still have 2 merges and both times they involve the . Like I said, they run together for a good stretch from Downtown Brooklyn all the way into Uptown Manhattan. The merge at Euclid is where things might not run well, both lines are running together only to split up again at Rockaway Blvd. Personally, it's best to keep the  at Euclid. While it's cool to have the  becoming the 4-borough line it once was and also running express as a bonus, it doesn't really need to go to Lefferts since not many people are interested in sticking to the . People would ditch the  the first chance. Off topic, but it would be best to just keep the 's name as the M, the  would've still been around if people didn't speak up about keeping the M's name.

While there isn't much merging going on, the merging along Broadway is still an issue. Even if you were to move the merge further north around 57 St-7 Av, you still have every single line along Broadway delayed because the  has to switch. At this point, nothing is really changing for Broadway except for one line not sticking around which would still probably result in the same issue anyway.

Onto the QBL side of things and much like Broadway, nothing is changing. There aren't any improvements except for the fact that QBL has an express service that runs express on QBL as well as along 6 Av in Manhattan. It's basically running almost the same exact service.  trains in this scenario are basically running like the , running from Forest Hills local with the  only to splitting off from the  to merge with the . 

The only other thing I would be focusing on is how service would operate, specifically how late night and weekend service would run. To go further in detail:

• Starting off with the  and , which service would cut back? Neither of them can't not run (yes, I said what I said). Well, you could cut back the  if it ran express along Brighton and ran to Forest Hills instead of Jamaica Center. This way, the  sticks around running express while also not having that weird merging problem around Queens Plaza into Manhattan.  trains would then just cut back to what they used to run back in the 90's, but extended to Forest Hills. What I mean by this is it runs only during weekdays and no service late nights.  trains would basically run back along 63 St during other times the  isn't running. 
• Cutting the  back would not be a good idea, severing a full time connection between CPW and 6 Av that has been around for decades. Only way to fix this is to run  trains as a full time line including late nights, it'll run to Norwood-205 St as a replacement for  trains during late nights. 

The only areas that are improving is South Brooklyn trains running through Dekalb Av, 6 Av, and CPW which was basically the whole idea. This isn't to say it's a bad idea, in fact a lot is improved. CPW was the main objective for having service improvements, other areas are basically a bonus.

I largely agree with this assessment.  Realistically, the easiest places to deinterline and remove merges are at DeKalb and CPW, which is largely accomplished here.  It would also be nice to remove the merger from express to local, but I know that that would be hard to do in practice.  The realilty on the Broadway line is that there are effectively two northern destinations on the local (Forest Hills, Astoria) and one northern destination on the express (96th).  Likewise, there are two southern destinations on the express (Sea Beach, West End) and one southern destination on the local (Bay Ridge).  The easy way of addressing this, is as MTA Researcher has done, 96th-West End via express,  Forest Hills-Bay Ridge via local, and Astoria-Sea Beach via express/local hybrid (due to the track merges).  Another idea is to run four services without merging between express and local, but this has the likelihood of overloading 96th and/or Bay Ridge.  This means 96th-West End, 96th-Sea Beach, Astoria-Bay Ridge, Forest Hills-Bay Ridge.  Another idea would still involve track merges, but moving those further away from Midtown.  This means something like 96th-West End, 96th-Sea Beach, Astoria-Bay Pkwy (West End line), and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge.  And yet another way of addressing this is severing the 60th street connection, either by completely segregating QBL from Broadway or perhaps running a QBL service along 63rd and merging in with the Broadway express.  All have some level of drawbacks, though.

When all is said and done, alleviating the merges at DeKalb and CPW should be done, even if a full deinterlining is not feasible.

^^^^^^^

To squeeze more capacity out of the Broadway BMT line, deinterlining is necessary.   trains shifting from express to local eats up capacity significantly.  More trains can be run if all trains coming off the Bridge tracks (south side) stay on the Broadway express to 96th st and all or the trains coming off the Montague Tunnel stay on the Broadway local to either Astoria/LGA or QBL local.  

You are correct that a reallocation of some of the Broadway services may also be needed.  Some  to be sacrificed for an increase in  and  trains.

My next proposal.  This proposal's goal is to minimize interlining of the branches as much as practical.  Key parts of the proposal involve having the M revert to the Nassau line, running all QBL expresses to 63rd and all QBL locals to 53rd, and general deinterlining of the usual trouble spots in the B division.  No changes planned for the A divison.

 205 St - Concourse exp - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  This will run 24 hours.   will run local along Fulton during late night hours. [An optional alternative would be to rename the Lefferts service as  , but H will be like A in every other way.  During late night hours, H wil run as a Lefferts-Euclid shuttle.]  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction. This is a very long train that runs in 4 boroughs.

 BPB/145th - Concourse local - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton exp - Brighton Beach.  Pretty much today's service.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction A and B will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  terminates at 145th.  No service nights or weekends.

 207 St - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton local - Euclid. Service all times except late nights.

 168 St - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton local - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St.

A quick word on the above pattern.  Currently, during late nights along CPW, we have  local to 207 and  express to 205.  The above pattern will bascially keep the same late night service, this time  express to 205 and  local to 207.  B and C will have the same service hours as currently, even though C's routing is now slightly different as an 8th Ave express instead of local.  Also,  services two branches on the south end (Lefferts/Far Rockaway), so it will get more service than  .  Given that Concourse will only be serviced by one line during nights and weekends, I felt it was better for the more frequent  to service Concourse instead of  .   Under this plan, during weekday hours, both Inwood and Concourse lines will each have one CPW express and one CPW local.

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - 8 Ave local - WTC.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended to 179 St.  Even though only one line is serving this corridor, I envision that about 20 TPH can be handled during rush hours.

 Jamaica Center - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - Culver local - CI.  24 hour service.  (10 TPH during rush hours).

 Court Square - BQ Crosstown Line - Culver local - Church.  24 hour service.  During weekday daytime hours,  is extended to Kings Highway to prevent interference with         that terminates at Church.  (During rush hours, 18 TPH between Bedford-Nostrand and Court, and 10 TPH south of Bedford-Nostrand).  

[K] Orange-K.  179 St - Hillside local - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - 2nd/Houston.   Service at all times except late nights.  (10 TPH during rush hours) 

 179 St - Hillside exp - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - Culver exp - Church.  Service during weekday daytime hours.  (10 TPH during rush hours).

A word about FGKV service.  The combined total of service during rush hour on FKV lines along the line between Forest Hills and Houston along the QBL express - 6th Ave lcoal line will be 30 TPH during rush hours.  Since the G merges into the line in Brooklyn, one of the services has to terminate at 2nd/Houston so that there is room for the G.  So K will terminate at 2nd/Houston.  V will provide an express service durin weekday hours.  V will not interilne with G at all, since G merges into the Culver tracks south of where V will run on the Culver express tracks.  V terminates at Church, while F and G continue further into Brooklyn.  

 will run its current service from Jamaica Center to Broad St.

[M] Brown-M.  Metropolitan Ave - Myrtle el - Broadway Brooklyn el - Nassau line - Chambers.  During midday weekdays, service is extended to Broad.  Rush hours, nights, weekends, service terminates at Chambers.  Late nights, shuttle between Metropolitan and Myrtle  stop. 

Yes, I am divorcing M service from the 6th Ave line.  Yes, passengers will have to transfer to get to Midtown, but they will have more choices than what existed 10 years ago.  First, there will be more trains along the 6th Ave line stopping at Delancey (both  and ) to make the transfer at Essex better.  Second, I envision a new transfer at Bowery to Grand St to provide a transfer to the 6th Ave express trains, which for most passengers will make a quicker trip if headed to W4th (including transfers to 8th Ave line), 34th, 42nd, and 47-50.  Canal is still availble for transfers to Broadway lines and  .  For passengers heading to west Midtown, I don't believe most will go all the way to Fulton and then backtrack, so likely anyone heading for ACE or 123 will probably take a 6th Ave train and transfer at W4th or take a 6th Ave or Broadway train and either transfer at 42nd or walk from the nearest 6th or Broadway station.  

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - 4th Ave exp - Sea Beach.

 96th / 2nd - Broadway express - 4th Ave exp - West End.

N and Q are basically identical, except south of 36th in Brooklyn.  I can see the combined service running 24 TPH rush hours (12 TPH on each of the branches) with less service during less busy times.  Even late nights, it seems that running 6 TPH along the trunk (and 3 TPH on each branch) would be better than running one as a shuttle in Brooklyn and having full service on the other branch.  So I expect that both service will be run 24 hours.

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  24 hour service.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, but I think that MTA can run this service efficiently.  Yes, MTA ran this Astoria-Bay Ridge service in the 1980's and there were added costs in deadheading to yards, so the service was changed.  But in those days, shared tracks with the Forest Hills -Sea Beach  train.  Since  ran directly to two yards, and ran to no yards, service was changed to Astoria-Sea Beach and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge so that each service had access to one yard.  IMO, since we do not have a QBL service on Broadway in my plan, there is no need to muck up the works and a completely deinterlined Astoria-Bay Ridge service can work during revenue hours without the need for a full yard on route.  Out of service trains can hop along the Sea Beach line to Coney Island yard.

23 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Here’s my modified idea based off of @mrsman and @Vulturiousfeedback:

 

Astoria Ditmars - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via Sea Beach - skips 49 Street 

Jamaica 179 St - Bay Ridge: QBL Exp via 60 St Tunnel - Bway/4 Av Lcl vía Montague St Tunnel 

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via West End

 

Jamaica Ctr - Coney Island: QBL Exp - via 53rd St Tunnel - 8 Av Lcl - W 4 Switch vía Culver 

Forest Hills - WTC: QBL Lcl via 63 St Tunnel - 6 Av Lcl - W 4 Switch 

 

205 - Coney Island: via Brighton

Forest Hills - Metropolitan Av.: via 63rd Street Tunnel

 

Remains Axed unless it comes back to 6 Av. Cmon Orange Q looks dope!

 

Anyway in here I turn the into a 1 borough Exp 2 borough Lcl along with the  .  as all local dead ends at WTC with the W 4 switch, just like Is extended to Brooklyn with the same switch.

 

Based on what @mrsmansaid I decided to keep to Brighton and  4 Av Exp.    

 

I decided to keep the but with a slight tweak since apparently everybody loves the and find It very useful.

 

I myself as someone who plans to move to Astoria want Express trains in my future neighborhood, and I want to give Queens more Downtown Express service. This is done in the form of the  .

As Vulturious has said, there are definitely some positives and negatives with your plan involving merges and the like.

If I could tweak your plan a little, I think the following would run better.  I will also get rid of the switching around at W4th.:

Astoria Ditmars - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via Sea Beach - skips 49 Street  

 Forest Hills - Bay Ridge: QBL local via 60 St Tunnel - Bway/4 Av Lcl vía Montague St Tunnel 

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via West End

Jamaica Ctr - WTC: QBL Exp - via 53rd St Tunnel - 8 Av Lcl 

 179 St - Coney Island: QBL Exp via 53 St Tunnel - 6 Av Lcl 

 Bedford Park Blvd - Brighton Beach via Brighton express

205 - Coney Island: via Brighton local

Forest Hills - Metropolitan Av.: via 63rd Street Tunnel

I see you feel strongly about connecting Astoria to the Broadway express, which the above plan does.  But I am concerned about the  switching from express to local along the Broadway tracks.  So I would provide additional service tweaks for the Broadway line: 

Astoria Ditmars - Coney Island - Bway/4 Av Lcl via Montague St tunnel and Sea Beach line   

 Forest Hills - Bay Ridge: QBL local via 60 St Tunnel - Bway/4 Av Lcl vía Montague St Tunnel 

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via West End 

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: Bway/4 Av Exp via Sea Beach  

The would be a supplemental line that is basically an express version of  .  Most Sea Beach trains will run local, but some of them will run express during weekday hours.  So as to prevent the merging on Broadway, all  trains will go to 96th instead of Astoria.   would be less frequent than  or  and would not run at all on nights or weekends.

As a follow up to my previous post, how would service run if all Brighton service went to Broadway and both Sea Beach and West End were serviced by 6th Ave trains?

I could envision the following:

96 St - Broadway express - Brighton local

 96 St - Broadway express - Brighton express [weekdays only]

Forest Hills - QBL local - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge 

Astoria - Broadway local - Whitehall 

Bedford Park Blvd - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach

205 St - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express - West End

The above service pattern would run during weekdays.  Some rush hour  trains will be extended to Bay Ridge, as the  service will increase to maintain adequate headways to Astoria.

On weekends, all of the above services will run, except .   will run to 168th instead of Bedford park Blvd and the will not run on weekends.  [ will run local in Brooklyn.]   

Late nights,  will run as above.   will run as above, except running along the 4th Ave local tracks in Brooklyn.  will run a shuttle between 36 St and Coney Island along Sea Beach.   will run Astoria- Broadway local - Bay Ridge.   and  will not run at all.

19 hours ago, Vulturious said:

So coming in from another thread, there was a question that came to my mind. Not sure if this was ever discussed before, but might as well ask now because of the inclusion of SAS.

Seeing as the  was brought in because it was more preferred than a 6 Av service along Brighton, how would service run if people on Brighton wanted 6 Av service instead or rather put simply, what if the  stuck around instead? Have fun with this one.

I could envision the following:

 96 St - Broadway express - 4th Ave express - West End

 Astoria - Broadway express - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach - Coney Island

 Forest Hills - QBL local - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

 Astoria - Broadway local - Whitehall

 Bedford Park Blvd - 6th Ave express - Brighton express - Brighton Beach

 205 St - 6th Ave express - Brighton local - Coney Island

I could see   running the services as they do today with a simple D-Q swap.  Both D and Q are 24 hour routes.  Both run full length at all times.  I can see sending  through the tunnel late nights, when  isn't running as happens today.  And yes, I unfortunately see them running an  service that swtiches between the local and express tracks on Broadway.

As I really don't like the between local and express, I would send to 96th and increase the frequency of  to maintain service to Astoria.  Most weekday   will terminate at Whitehall, but a few rush hour runs will follow the line to 59th and then provide supplemental service on the Sea Beach line.  If both  and  start at 96th, I could see  not running on weekends or late nights at all.  In that case, the weekend will run Astoria-Broadway local - merge at Canal - Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach.  Late nights, nor  or  service, so  will follow its rush hour routing through the Montague tunnel to the Sea Beach line.

A real key (and IMO easy) way to improve delays due to trains intermingling is to have all Brighton trains to 6th Ave and all 4th Ave express trains to Broadway express (or vice versa).  This basically means a D/Q swap in Brooklyn or a B/N swap in Brooklyn.

For systemwide operation purposes, which one is chosen doesn't really matter.  Where it really matters is with regard to meeting passenger prefernces.  If Brighton passengers prefer Broadway and 4th Ave passengers prefer 6th Ave, then do that, especially if there is a wide difference.  If both sets of passengers prefer Broadway, then one side is going to have to get the less preferred route so that delays around DeKalb can get mitigated.

One thing to keep in mind is that if you are on a 6th Ave train, one additional transfer can basically get you pretty close to any Broadway station in Manhattan, but the reverse is not true.  This is because every Broadway station between City Hall and 23rd runs close to the  [where you can make a transfer at Broadway-Laffayette], and every station between 23rd and 59/Lex runs within a short distance of  , which is a cross-platform transfer at W4 or 34th from B/D trains.  But if I'm on a Broadway train over the bridge, I cannot easily transfer to any of the 8th Ave trains and I can't even make a single transfer to get me close to W4th without backtracking.  Given that 6th Ave stations are harder to reach, it may make sense to have Brighton trains go to 6th Ave which will allow for DeKalb station (which is north of Atlantic) to have direct connection to 6th Ave.  

Does anyone know if it is feasible to add a switch on the 8th Ave line upper level between 50th and 42nd in such a way that local trains from CPW could merge onto the local tracks from 42nd southward and not interfere with  trains coming from 53rd onto the 8th Ave local tracks?

If such were feasible, then perhaps it would be a good idea to run  as CPW locals, with  as CPW expresses.  South of 59th,  will both stop at 50th, and then merge onto the express tracks continuing towards Cranberry.   will follow its existing pattern on the 8th Ave local, terminating at WTC.  

If the above were done, we eliminate the merging at Canal, the CPW local will continue straight to 8th Ave, only skipping 23rd and Spring.  This would also deinterline Columbus Circle.  It would also allow  and  to both have access to 50th.

3 minutes ago, Armandito said:

The and lines, despite sharing trunk lines with other routes, do not share any of their own trackage with their respective express counterparts which is why they can run as frequently and as reliably as they could. But keep in mind that overcrowding is a key contributing factor to delays and erratic scheduling if merging doesn't play a role.

Sure.  All that is true, but the point is that those lines are deinterlined so they run much more consistently.  If for some reason there was an incident along  that caused a delay, and then the incident cleared up, you would liklely have a lot of bunching - which is not good for consistency.  Because  is by itself, a line manager can hold some trains to ensure that the full train line would soon run at consistnet intervals.  And they can do that without fouling up other services.

18 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Even the current  has to continue out of service to get to Jamaica Yard, although it’s not far from Continental to the yard leads near Union Turnpike and the tracks are below the in-service  tracks at 75th Ave, so they don’t interfere with  and  trains. But the IND built those tracks right from the start, whereas yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks would have to be built from scratch and would likely force some service outages during the construction. 

I’m starting to wonder if maybe it’s more the multiple merges that mess up  service than the overall length of the line. I wonder if we address said merges, that could yield measurable improvements to the . Maybe it’s not entirely necessary to completely change the line into an Astoria-Coney Island service that might cause blowback from West End Line riders who would be put on a completely local service and have to transfer at 36th for express service.

Perhaps we can start by addressing the bottlenecks on QBL, Broadway and DeKalb first and maybe that might be enough to show better reliability and permit trains to run more frequently. So I’m in favor of having the  stay express all the way and run to/from 96th/2nd and rerouting the  to the 63rd St Tunnel and the weekday  to 53rd. I’m also in favor of running the  via Sea Beach, the  via West End and the  and  via Brighton. This would require the  to run solo in Astoria. But doing so would likely require a significant amount of  trains running into and out of Brooklyn because Whitehall and City Hall Lower will not be able to turn them all. I don’t think it would be so good to have all those trains taking up track space running light. So I’m going to suggest the possibility of having the  serve as a secondary Sea Beach service between Kings Highway and 8th Ave on weekdays in addition to the . 

I agree.  The length of the line is not what causes problems and delays, for the most part.  The merges are far worse at propagating delays.

So many merges affecting the .  The changes that you propose are good interim steps.  A partial deinterlining that is likely politically feasible, targetting the worst merges, even though not all merges are addressed.  

Remove the from the Broadway local which produces a lot of backups.  QN to 2nd Ave and RW to Queens.

Switching the tunnels of F and M will eliminate some merges along QBL.

The above also separates the services at DeKalb, which is absolutely necessary.  And any  trains that do make it to Brooklyn are better off riding along the Sea Beach than the West End.  That way, any merging that it does will only affect  and  , and only indirectly affect  .  [If W ran on West End, it would directly affect all three services.]

[I am still supportive of more signifianct system-wide deinterlining for the B division, but I know that doing so wold be a heavy lift.  These measures that you indicated above are far more politically feasible and don't change commutes for too many people.]

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

As far as I can recall, since 1967, the main West End service was routed onto the Manhattan Bridge.  So it will be a big leap of faith on the MTA to actually implement the vanshnookenraggen plan and send the West End service to the Montague tunnel, even though it is clearly better from the point of view of merging delays.  So likely, the MTA is more likely to accept a plan where  is sent to Sea Beach, is sent to West End.   and  run as they do currently, providing Bay Ridge trains with access to the Jamaica Yard and Astoria trains terminating at Whitehall with out of service access to CI yard.   and  can both run from 96/2 to the Brighton line, with one line the Brighton express and the other line the Brighton local.  This would still be a marked improvement over current service as it will deinterline the DeKalb area and prevent  trains switching from express to local on the Broadway BMT main tracks.

Above, we earlier discussed some of the "poliltics" involved, where riders would be upset at a change in travel pattern where they will now have an additional transfer, even if by doing so they get better frequencies and less delays.  So likely West End passengers would not be thrilled with their service going into the Montague tunnel, even if it improves reliability on other South Brooklyn routes - all for the price of a transfer at 36th and 4th (Brooklyn).

An interesting story out of San Francisco reinforces the point.  San Francisco has the muni metro service, which is basically a street running trolley system that leads to a subway tunnel for the Downtown portion of the trip.  [Kind of similar in operation to Boston's green line or Philadelphia's subway-surface lines.]  For the longest time, it was kinown that delays for the street running portion led to delays in the tunnel service, preventing the running of consistent service at regular intervals that led to massive congestion.    On top of that, there were also capacity issues (and related efficiency issues) since the subway could run 3 car trains, but only 1-car or 2-car trains were run due to constraints on the surfact portion of the lines.

When COVID hit, SF suspended service on the subway.  Over the past few months, they have slowly reinstated the subway service, but they did not reinstate service on the J-Church line.  J-Church is running as a surfce shuttle and passengers must transfer to one of the other streetcar lines to continue service to Downtown.  The managers of SFMTA have discovered that this makes the subway operate more efficiently and with fewer delays.  But the passengers of J-Church are unhappy with the requirement to transfer and have gotten their political representatives involved to make sure that this service pattern does not remain permanent.  The SF supervisors unanimously voted to reinstate J-Church subway service some time next year.

https://humantransit.org/2020/06/san-francisco-a-forbidden-fantasy-comes-true.html

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/j-church-pilot-eases-subway-congestion-muni-metro

https://sfbayca.com/2021/12/08/j-church-to-return-to-subway-in-early-2022-with-next-round-of-muni-service-restoration/

https://www.streetcar.org/muni-to-consider-pcc-streetcars-for-future-j-line-service/

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The dosent need a full time yard. Look at the , there's no yard anywhere along its route and yet it's still one of the best preforming lines in the system.

If the really needs a yard, just convert 36th St yard into a storage yard.

The  does have a yard, in the same way that  has a yard.  

While it is true that neither has a yard on its route, an out of service train can continue on the existing train tracks beyond the revenue portions of the line and eventually hit CI Yard.

 ends at Whitehall in revenue service, but out of service trains will continue through Montage and DeKalb and eventually make its way to Coney Island, likely on the track for West End or Sea Beach.   Most s just reverse and don't need to enter the yard, but there is a way to get there.

 ends at Church in revenue service, but out of service train will continue down the Culver line toward Coney Island.  Most  s just reverse and don't need to enter the yard, but there is a way to get there.

Does the  actually need a yard? Not really.   Unlike and  , there is no direct way to get to a yard once the goes south of 59th in Brooklyn.  There is a lot of history of MTA and BMT running an Astoria-Bay Ridge via Broadway local service.  It didn't have a yard then, and it doesn't really need a yard now.  However, it is true that more efficient operations would have a yard along the route, so to the extent that there are two services on the Broadway local (like today with R and W), it is beneficial to route the Bay Ridge train to a yard (like the Jamaica Yard).  

Can MTA be convinced to run a deinterlined Astoria-Broadway-Bay Ridge service without a yard, even when there are no other trains on the line to cause merging delays? It's hard to say.  If they can, then it is clear that the should run on such a service, leaving the bridge routes [N,Q,B,D] to service Brighton, West End, and Sea Beach, preferably in a way that doesn't cause more merging at DeKalb.  But if they want a yard, then the Astoria trains need to link to either West End or Sea Beach.

For nearly 20 years, there was significant construction on the Manhattan Bridge, which limited train service to only one set of tracks.

In the first phase of the construction,  ,  ,and Orange-Q connected the 6th Ave express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while  ,  , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.  During the second phase of the project, at least during midday hours,  ,  , and  connected the Broadway express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while  ,  , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.

Based on the above, one can surmise that the MTA prioritized Brighton and West End riders by giving them more direct connections to Midtown, while the Sea Beach and Bay Ridge passengers were forced to take the long way via Montague.

When the project finally ended, the MTA could have really implemented a service plan to reduce interlining, without much political cost.   and  would keep their then-existing routings as Broadway locals with service from Astoria-Sea Beach and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge.  Meanwhile,  and  could both run to Brighton (one local and one express) and the  could run to the West End line as a Broadway express originating at 57th Street (and eventually 96th once the SAS phase 1 was completed).  Each group of passengers would have ridden on similar service in the recent past and many of the merges that plague our system would be eliminated.  Alas, it was not to be.

As we think about untangling the merges today, we are left with a constraint that each subway line should have direct access to a yard.  If this constraint weren't there, it would make plenty of sense to run Astoria-Bay Ridge  trains through Montague tunnel and leaving the  trains for Brighton and the  trains for West End / Sea Beach (or vice versa).  But if we must assign each service with a dedicated yard, and the desire is to have the fewest merges overall, then it makes sense to run a  or  train to Bay Ridge (allowing Bay Ridge trains access to a yard in Northern Manhattan or Bronx) and running the Astoria trains to the West End line (with access to Coney Island Yard), as specified in the vanshnookenraggen plan.  With the addition of a pair of switches south of 36th, this is possible.  However, it will force many West End passengers to make an additional transfer.  I'm not bothered by that, because I know that the overall affect on the system as a whole would remove a lot of delay (including West End passengers), but I do understand that a bunch of West End passengers will not be happy with the additional transfer.

As far as I can recall, since 1967, the main West End service was routed onto the Manhattan Bridge.  So it will be a big leap of faith on the MTA to actually implement the vanshnookenraggen plan and send the West End service to the Montague tunnel, even though it is clearly better from the point of view of merging delays.  So likely, the MTA is more likely to accept a plan where  is sent to Sea Beach, is sent to West End.   and  run as they do currently, providing Bay Ridge trains with access to the Jamaica Yard and Astoria trains terminating at Whitehall with out of service access to CI yard.   and  can both run from 96/2 to the Brighton line, with one line the Brighton express and the other line the Brighton local.  This would still be a marked improvement over current service as it will deinterline the DeKalb area and prevent  trains switching from express to local on the Broadway BMT main tracks.

After reviewing many of the above websites, I have found that I like a bit of a hybrid approach.  There are elements of each of these plans that I like and some that I do not.  Heck, some of my own plans on here that I have posted could also be improved.

I do like Vanshnookenraggen's approach for Southern Brooklyn.  This basically means:

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague - 4th Ave local -West End line

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton local

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton express

 Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach

 Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express - 4th Ave local south of 36th (by way of a new switch) - Bay Ridge

I do like Alon Levy's approach for most of the rest of the B division, except the CPW line north of 145th.  This basically means:

 CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry - Fulton lines

 CPW local - 6th Ave express - Man Bridge N

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave local - WTC

 JC or 179th - QBL express - 63rd - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line (some V trains may terminate at Houston/2nd)

M reverts to the Nassau line.:  Metropolitan Ave - Broadway Brooklyn line - Will Bridge - Nassau line - Chambers or Broad

Nerdy Nel really goes into a good explanation of CPW.  Basically, the junction there can support both the Inwood branch and the Concourse branch each having one express and one local.  The only reverse-merging at 145th will take place in the reverse peak because both Concourse local and express share the same track.  As such,:

 207 St - CPW express

 205 St - Concourse express - CPW express

 168th - CPW local

 Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse local - CPW local

I would leave Division A alone for the moment.

I see all of the above as first steps that can be done with minimal captial expenditure.  Other than the switch for the  , the infrastructure can support these train patterns and the only thing that would be needed for implementaion are new signs and maps and perhaps an education campaign and weathering the political storm for those who will not like the changes.

However, deinterlining should only be a first phase to general subway improvements.  There are many captial projects that can seriously improve the above, but it will take more effort, time, and money to complete capital projects.  Of course, several lines could see extensions, but the following projects seem to be the most important, if possible to make deinterlining work better.

Conversion of 36 St Queens to an express stop

Conversion of Woodhaven on the QBL to an express stop

Broome St subway - essentailly a link for the 8th Ave locals to go right to the Williamsburg Bridge so that current J, M, and Z passengers can still maintain a connection to Midtown.

63/Lex to 59/Lex full in-system free transfer

Bowery - Grand free transfer

Prince St - Broadway/Laffayette free transfer

Queensboro Plaza - Queens Plaza free transfer

Improvments at terminals so that more trains can be turned.

A capital project to improve the Rogers Junction could help with the congestion of Division A trains in Brooklyn.  I could see a substantial improvement to trains here, especially if  to Flatbush,  to New Lots and  to Utica.  Another possibility is to Flatbush,  to New Lots,  to Utica, and  to Atlantic.  This option would require a turning track south of Atlantic for  trains.

Some deinterlining resources that may be helpful.

Alon Levy:

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/06/12/how-deinterlining-can-improve-new-york-city-transit/

Vanshnookenraggen (twitter):

https://twitter.com/vanshnook/status/1359599882189885450

Nerdy Nel - NYTIP:

https://nerdynel.me/2019/01/25/nytip/

16 hours ago, Siemenslover said:

I know the QBL-Broadway is unpopular here but it’s needed and should definitely be more than 7 TPH. If anything, shift some N/Q to the B/D

Sure.  Ideally, by untangling the knots on Broadway, there would be more room for more trains on all 4 Broadway services.  If all services were to stay the sajme, but W was increased from 7 to 14 that would be great!.  But if we were trying to be revenue neutral, it would amount to a reallocation of services as opposed to a general increase.

And one would also assume that an effective cut of N, Q, and R services would amount to an increase in D, B, and M services so that there is not much effective loss of service for the 4th Ave, Brighton, and QBL local corridors.

Many of us know that deinterlining generally would resolve a lot of the merging conflicts that plague the system, especially the B division.  Many of us wonder why the N merges from express to local in Manhattan, why the CPW lines criss-cross at 59th, and why we have the whole Gold St mess near DeKalb in Brooklyn.  Certainly we can all propose fixes to address these issues to allow for better train flow.  Alas, the devil is in the details.

There are a number of constraints that exist within the B division that prevent the "perfect" deinterlining plan.  Two key ones are that the 8th Ave local basically dead ends at WTC, preventing  a full capacity of locals flowing south at that point.  The other key one is that the BMT eastern division has short platforms, so to the extent that we are keeping an M service to midtown, the M service cannot run full-length trains and therefore cannot be linked with a busy service like QBL express.

If we were to separate the Broadway trains from QBL, which would certainly help with the delays on the Broadway line by making all expresses to 96th and all locals to Astoria, we would be limited to 7 services along the 6th and 8th system of trains (aka IND).  As is the case now, we cannot run 8 services over the 4 trunk lines (8th local, 8th express, 6th local, 6th express) since one of those trunk lines dead ends at WTC.

Can a de-interlining plan be made with the above constraints and still involve no merging within the CBD.  Yes.  This is the best plan that I have seen:

 CPW expresses - 6th Ave expresses - Man Bridge to Brooklyn

 CPW locals - 8th Ave local - WTC

 QBL expresses - 53rd tunnel - 8th Ave expresses - Cranberry tunnel

 QBL locals - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave locals - Houston St - F to Culver, M to Myrtle

WIth Broadway lines being separated, this provides a full service component for many of the services.  BD are together, AE are together, FM are together for their entire runs between their initial northern merges (145th or Forest Hills) and their southern merges (southern Brooklyn, Hoyt-Schermerhorn, F/M split on the Lower East Side).  While  is depicted as one line, it could be two services (servicing 168th and BPB), but keep in mind that the combined total of  and  service cannot exceed the turning capacity of WTC.  Since  +  is greater than one services, but not as great as two normal services, so the number of trains running along the 8th Ave local would still be somewhat constrained by WTC.

All in all, the above is a very good plan.  Keeps expresses with expresses and locals with locals.  Relegates WTC with its limited capacity to the lowest demand line (CPW local).  And it maintains 4 full services along QBL without involving Broadway or .

My biggest problem is that the above plan will prevent QBL local passengers west of Roosevelt from accessing Queens Plaza and the potential jobs that are burgeoning in that area of LIC.  Ideally, I'd like the QBL expresses to run on 63rd and the QBL locals to run on 53rd.  Doing so would introduce at least one more merge somewhere within the bounds of the CBD.  It would also likely constrain the solitary line that terminates at WTC even more so than the above plan.

After a lot of ruminating, the plan that I came up with would still separate Broadway from QBL, allow QBL expresses to run into 63rd, and generally provide more service all around with only one CBD merge.  It's not perfect, but this is what I came up with:

  CPW expresses - 8th Ave expresses - Cranberry tunnel [no merging]

[M]  QBL locals - 53rd - 8th Ave locals - W4 switch - E to Culver and [M] to Myrtle.  [no merging between Forest Hills and Lower East Side.]

 CPW locals (could be two services like  to 168th and  to BPB) - 6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge.  Limited to 20 TPH as it will merge with  near 6th/53rd.

 QBL express - 63rd street tunnel - 6th Ave local - W4 switch - service to WTC.  Limited to 20 TPH as it will merge with  near 6th/53rd.

 QBL express - 63rd street tunnel - 6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge.  Limited to 10 TPH as it will merge with botrh  and  near 6th/53rd.

In essence, the D and F can both run 20 TPH so that the parts of the line where only one service run has at least 20 TPH of rush hour service.  This means the WTC-W4 line, th 6th Ave local north of W4, and the CPW local until 145th can all run 20 TPH rush hour service.  [That throughput is split north of 145th.]   will act as a service that runs between the two to make the busiest parts of both lines run at full capacity.  So B adds to F along the QBL express and B adds to D along the Manhattan Bridge.  The merge would certainly cause delays, but in some ways a merge of this sort is necessary, given all of the other constraints.

[This is similar to what I posted on 11/18.  Not perfect, but perhaps it is sufficient to greatly reduce merging within the system.]

On 11/25/2021 at 11:21 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well, if you leave QBL as is or simply swap the  and ‘s tunnels and deinterline CPW with  express /  local, then the  becomes the sole 8th Ave local. But it would have to run on the same frequency (15 tph) as now because it would still be sharing with the .  With the  moved over to the express tracks, that would result in a cut to 8th Avenue Local service. 

Perhaps a deinterlined QBL could possibly mitigate the loss of 8th Ave local service with a  express in Manhattan. Maybe by running all 53 St Tunnel-bound trains local and all 63rd St Tunnel-bound trains express in Queens, it might be possible to run a more frequent  and with the  on the same 8-9 tph as now. Depends how well Transit can turn trains at 71st Ave, of course.

Absolutely.  A deinterlining along the above linew would result in a loss of 8th Ave local service.  The question is whether it leaves acceptable service in its place.  The 8th Ave local only uniquely services the following stations: WTC, Spring, 23rd, and 50th.  WTC is within the same complex as Canal on the AC, so no real loss.  Spring is a relatively quiet station, so while it's not great to lose service, it's not catastrophic either.  23rd and 50th are a bit more troubling, but still within the realm of doable.  

I am meaining to do a bit of a longer post on some deinterlining points.  I think that I will address in my next post.

On 11/27/2021 at 2:55 AM, Vulturious said:

I think it would be better to de-interline the mess rather than moving it up. Regardless of whether you keep the merge between Herald Square and Times Square or at 57 St-7 Av, you'd still end up with delays on all sides because of it.

There is technically one other way of running express service to and from 60 St tunnel and that would be using the provisions north of 57 St and creating a new connection to CPW. This isn't the best solution and a costly one at that, but it'll help in the long run by providing direct Broadway connection to the CPW as well as creating more alternatives for 6 Av express service trying to get into South Brooklyn without having to be rerouted via Culver.

The connection would be built just before the express to local switch north of the station. This would get rid of the express to local interference with the  staying express all the way to 57 St-7 Av and whatever local train to CPW.

The only issue that would create is how to run the service. One benefit is having alternatives for 6 Av, but with people still wanting that Broadway/QBL connection, it would be hard to do so. This doesn't really help fix the mess, just creates more issues because of a new branching. 6 Av might have to lose one of it's services if a Broadway/CPW connection were to become a thing while would result in the resurrection of the Yellow B or a rerouted  with an extension to Bay Ridge. The  might as well cut back to Whitehall or City Hall to run more reliably since the  would be a better candidate in a way. 

It's a whole complicating process, but an idea that can be worth while for all parties. 

I am sure that others have mentioned it, but a key reason for the problem of merging with the N has to do with the introduction of SAS service.

Pre-SAS, Q terminated at 57 St.  The signals were set up so that downtown N trains can come off the 60th street tunnel and merge into the express tracks.  If an N were coming, the Q would hold in place in the relaying and wait for the N to pass through.  As such, from the passenger perspective anyway, the movements were seemless, since all of the delays fell on the brunt of the out of service Q trains that were relaying.  As Q's have been extended to 96th, that is no longer the case, and the movement of N between local and express tracks is severely delay prone.

So it is true that this movement will cause delays whether done at 57th or whether done at 34th.  As stated above, the solution to all of this is a deinterlining of the Broadway BMT line.  Even if no other change is made, a deinterlining of Broadway would be extremely helpful.

Twitter user LGA_A320 made the following chart of subway capacity druing the morning rush hour:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y-5FFDDOcrCR1YRK8wI3HEFK7bsc06_K/view

One immediate reaction to seeing this is to look at how many black lines there are, even in the CBD.  This represents unused capacity.  With all of the entanglements, we are not fully utilizing the already built resources of subway tracks.

Now look at the utilization of SB trains along the Broadway line.  You can use Canal St or 57 St for this purpose. Basically:

10 tph Q

9 tph N

7 tph W

10 tph R

Obviously, this is well below the theoretical maximum of 30 tph locals and 30 tph expresses.  While there are many real world constraints, the biggest one is the interlining.

[Doing some addition and looking at the chart, this amounts to 11 tph from 96th, 15 tph from Astoria, 10 tph from QBL local, 25 tph from 60th st tunnel.  19 tph along the SB express south of 34th and continuing onto the bridge.  17 tph on the SB local south of 34th, with 7 terminating at Astoria, and 10 continuing down Montague.]

If N went to 96th St instead of Astoria, and you reallocated some of the above allocation to provide additional W's to adequately service Astoria, you can eliminate this bottleneck in a revenue-neutral way, with minimal loss of train service along the Broadway branches.  Of course, eliminating the bottleneck would also allow MTA to run even more trains overall through this section [and they should], but that will cost $ to pay for operators and train sets.

Let's say we take 3 train sets away from R, 2 away from Q, and 1 away from N and reassigned them to W.  Run all N's to/from 96th and we'd now have:

8 tph Q

8 tph N

13 tph W

7 tph R

[Doing some addition , this amounts to 16 tph from 96th, 13 tph from Astoria, 7 tph from QBL local, 20 tph from 60th st tunnel.  16 tph along the SB express south of 34th and continuing onto the bridge.  20 tph on the SB local south of 34th, with 7 terminating at Astoria, and 13 continuing down Montague.  With the increase in service to the W, it would seem to make sense to terminate R at Whitehall and continue W to Brooklyn, or to terminate 7 W's at Whithall and have 7 R's and 6 W's continue to Brooklyn.]

There is a lot to like about the above.  A good simplification without cutting off too many of the existing travel patterns.

Let me see if I can regurgitate it for simplicity:

Inwood-207 St to Rockaways/Lefferts Blvd [CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Express]  

168th St to Coney Island [CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express, Sea Beach Local]  

Norwood-205 St to Euclid Av [Concourse Express, CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Local]  

Bedford Park Blvd to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express/Local]  

Jamaica Center to WTC [QBL Express, via 53 St, 8Av Local to WTC]  

Jamaica 179 St to Coney Island [QBL Express, via 53 St, 6 Av Local, via Rutgers St, Culver Local]   

 Forest Hills-71 Av to Metropolitan Av [QBL local, via 63 St, 6 Av local, Brooklyn-Broadway Local, Myrtle Ave Local] 

96St- 2 Av to Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local]  

96 St - 2 Av to Brighton Beach [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Express]  

Forest Hills-71 Av to Whitehall [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local]  

Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local]

I could see this working quite well, albeit we still would have some merging delays due to the R/W merger and the E/F/M merges in the area of 53/6.  It is certainly better than existing patterns, though.   shold probably be extended during rush hours to at least 9 Av or Bay Parkway to provide more service on the 4th Ave local and avoid bottlenecks due to the movements around Whitehall.

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

If the only change that you make in the name of deinterlining, is to deinterline CPW, then making  express and  local will have fewer changes to the rest of the system.   express will remain express down 8th Ave continuing to the Cranberry tunnel allowing  to be a sole local and terminating at WTC.  This avoids the Canal merge.  If AC were local then E would be forced to be express and one of the two services (A or C) would have to merge at Canal to continue into the Cranberry tunnel.  It's more of a major change to have  run to Brooklyn and  terminate at WTC. 

If one is worried about the "politics" involved and whether changes in the name of deinterlining would be accepted by the key figures at MTA and for the local population groups, then AC express BD local would be an easier pill to swallow, since the only changes being made would be along the CPW corridor and not on the rest of the system.

Of course, if you want to make changes to the QBL routes, in particular, that may change which set of CPW lines.  I think the key to choosing between AC exp - BD local OR AC local - BD exp is to see what happens with the other services along 6th, 8th, and Broadway.

11 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

Running an M route to Prospect Park doesn't necessarily mean that we will be severing the connection from Broadway Brooklyn to Midtown.  Why can't the trains that emanate from Jamaica run to Broad St and the trains from Broadway Junction run up 6th Ave?  I can seriously envision that many riders of  or  would transfer to the new express at the first opportunity.  That would at least relieve Essex.  And perhaps, if only a small segment of the Broadway Brooklyn line (between Marcy and Broadway Junction) needs longer platforms, perhaps we can still increase train car capacity on QBL.  [I believe Marcy, Myrtle, and Broadway Junction stops themselves can accommodate 10 car trains, but the other stops cannot.  Since there are only 3 tracks here, an express will only stop at those stations in the peak direction but will stop at all stops in the reverse peak direction.]