mrsman

Quite clear that they do not really do this based on the customer perspective. Ideally, the public designations of these trains should be the ones that make the most sense for the customers. Obviously, when there is construction, the trains can't do their regular routing, but at least in the above example, it seems clear that E should stay on 8th and F should stay on 6th.

And based on all of the above, I now seem to be in favor of a plan that will run as follows: CPW local - 8th Ave local - WTC QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry - Fulton line CPW express - 6th Ave express - South Brooklyn QBL local (from 179) - 63rd - 6th Ave local - Culver line or Myrtle line 96th/2nd - Broadway express - South Brooklyn Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague Tunnel - South Brooklyn would serve as a bit of a hybrid, but only 6 TPH runs during rush hour. QBL local emanating from Forest Hills - servicing Queens Plaza - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall. would force interlining on the 6th local and Broadway local, but keep interference away from every other trunk line. will run as they do now, but they will also be within the interference zone as there are sections where these trains do interact with an trains. would be a little bit of a train to be used as needed. Ideally, most QBL local customers would just use . Most 6th Ave stations in Midtown are close enough to Broadway, and an easy transfer to would be provided at 63rd/Lex. (An improved transfer to 456 would also be critical. THe QBL folks who need to go to LIC will have a limited R service that can service that need. R certainly introduces an interference between Broadway and 6th Ave lines, but only affecting the local tracks.

THose tracks should not be abandoned, for the reasons you state. I wonder if anyone knows how feasible it is to install track switches to do the following:. (I.e. could any of these alternates operate without interfering with the operations of or ) 1) Run AC as express at Columbus Circle, switch to the local tracks to service 50th, switch back to the express tracks by 42nd. In this case BD will be CPW locals and E trains will be the sole 8th Ave local and will terminate at WTC. 2) Run AC as express at Columbus Circle, swith to the local tracks to service 50th, continue on the local tracks down 8th Ave. In this case, BD will be CPW locals and E will be the 8th Ave express service. Depending upon service patterns, you could limit AC to the turning capacity of WTC and run a full load of Queens-53rd-8th express trains into the Cranberry turnnel. Alternatively, if you maintain or patterns on 53rd, then will not run at full capacity on the 8th Ave express, and very likely A will merge in with E to service Cranberry tunnel and C will terminate at WTC. 3) Run AC as local at Columbus Circle, sevice 50th, and then switch to the express tracks before 42nd. In this case, BD will be CPW expresses and E trains will be the 8th Ave local service. I would think that if you wanted to de-interline QBL, and decided that the QBL locals will service 53rd and the QBL expresses will service 63rd, the following will need to be done: Extend platforms along the line so that both F and M can run full length QBL express - 6th Ave local trains Run as a Forest Hills - QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave local train that terminates at WTC. Run as express and hope that alternate 1 is feasible so that 50th can be served. I think a better plan, though, would be as follows: Extend platforms along the line so that both F and M can run full length QBL express - 6th Ave local trains* Run both and service as the QBL local, but the QBL local will depart form 179th, not Forest Hills. This will allow for more trains on the local tracks. The service will run through 53rd to the 8th Ave express and continue to the Cranberry Tunnel. This would force as 8th Ave locals that terminate at WTC and as the CPW expresses * As an alternative along the Broadway-Brooklyn line, what if the rush hour service were rearranged as follows: 6 TPH Brown M service Metropolitan to Chambers 8 TPH service from JC to Broad (4 J and 4 Z) 6 TPH service from QBL express-63rd-6th Ave local - Broadway Brooklyn to terminate at Broadway Junction. will run express in the dominant direction. A train like this would have fewer platforms to extend and essentially will be a train where JMZ passengers can transfer to reach Midtown.

I do like your proposal A. It is defintiely the most cost effective. There is a lot of commuter rail trackage in many US cities that can be utilized rather cheaply to supplement the subway system if the frequency were increased and if fare/transfer policies in the inner city area. For NYC, this would mean that the stations would all accept OMNY and MetroCard, the fare within city limits would be equal to the subeay fare, A free (out of system) transfer to buses and subways would also be needed. A frequent service of local trains (at least every 8 minuts or more frequent) that run on the Harlem Line, that have the above fare/transfer policies within NYC limits, and that stop at every Bronx station on the way to GCT would be transformative. Other similar rail lines that can be considered for similar treatment include: Fairmount line in Boston, Metra Electric line in Chicago, CHW,CHE, Fox Chase lines in Philadelphia. Port Washington line, local stops on main line, Atlantic branch (Brooklyn - Valley Stream) on the LIRR. Of course, some of the Penn Station access trains of Metro North can als be used to provide better serive for Co-op city area and the far west side along the Hudson line connection to Penn sta.

^^^^^ Thank you for that analysis. It would seem based on the above, 2nd Ave would be the most balanced choice. Close transfers to , , are expected. A long transfer to and are also possible, and those are within the range of existing long transfers like PABT-Times Square. I guess, while I have not seen official plans for such, transfers to Bowery and Fulton St Manhattan are also about the same length as TS-PABT and should also be constructed. While I prefer a tie in to Nassau, if the Hanover Square routing can provide a transfer passageway of reasonable distance to Fulton St Manhattan, then it would seem like the lower SAS (below 59th) would be reasonably connected with the rest of the system, even without direct Brooklyn service. Brooklyn passengers on can transfer to the East Side SAS at Fulton, (one of) the first Manhattan station these trains hit. Similar with (and ) at Grand and at 2nd Ave. The only Brooklyn trains that will not have a direct transfer to SAS in Lower Manhattan are , , , . The Upper East Side SAS passengers would have a lot of connections if they take Q. If they take T, they will have transfers to EM4567S as mentioned above. Given the layout of Midtown, all of Midtown is reachable if you have access or transfer to 2nd Ave, Park Ave, 6th Ave, and 8th Ave and th basically will provide that -- a transfer to 456 to reach areas south of 42nd, a transfer to EM to reach 53rd and south on th 6th and 8th lines. Queens passengers coming in on or the 53rd st tunnel will have a connection to . Those coming in on the 60th or 63rd tunnels will not, unless there is a direct train connection from 63rd to SAS. One way of improving Queens coonections to SAS would be as follows: EF as QBL locals* to the 53rd street tunnel. E to 8th Ave local to WTC. F to 6th Ave local to Culver. M trains will terminate at 57th/6th and will no longer service Queens. RW trains willl be Broadway locals and will use the 60th street tunnel to Astoria. [The W desingation may no longer be necessary.] N, Q, T, and V trains will all run through the 2nd/63rd junction in different patterns: N QBL express - 63rd tunnel - straight through 63rd - Broadway express Q Upper 2nd Ave - turn - 63rd - Broadway express T Upper 2nd Ave- straight through 2nd Ave - SAS V QBL express - 63rd tunnel - turn - SAS Operationally, the above should be similar to the current Gold Street interlocking. N and T operate without interfering with each other and so do Q and V. QT north, NV east, QN west, TV south. [Correspondingly, B and N operate without interfering with each other and so do D and Q. BD Bridge N, QN Bridge S, BQ Brighton, DN 4th Ave.] * Of course EF can be QBL express and NV QBL locals, but that would cut off direct QBL local access to LIC. But if V were local, V passengers could transfer at 53rd to EF to go back into LIC. It's roundabout, but it's possible.

You are welcome. Many of my deinterlining plans are not pure deinterlinings, as that is somewhat unfeasible. The QBL express is such a busy service that the priority should be to make this a service without downstream interference. If we are stuck with the notion that every station beyond Forest Hills is served by an express train*, then it does make some sense to have three separate QBL express services: Hillside express-QBL express, Hillside local-QBL express, and JC-QBL express. We in fact have something like this today with the differences in <E>, and services. My idea instead of making the Hillside express an occasional train to handle the extra that can't be turned back at JC, to make it a regular line with its own designation. I think this is useful, since 179th may be the end of the subway, but its not the end of Queens. A lot of E Queens bus passengers transfer there, and it would be nice to express them along the Hillside stretch. Now with three separate services, we have to keep them together and not let anything intermix with them, so from Forest Hills down, they all join as a single route along the QBL express, 53rd, and the 8th Ave express, continuing into Brooklyn all the way to Hoyt-Schermerhorn. There, the three services can be split into the three regular services we have today: Fulton local, Fulton express to Lefferts, Fulton express to Far Rockaway. If we allow the services to merge back in together at Euclid, you could have the sevice that you proposed: locals to Lefferts, express to FR, and express to Rockaway Park. Unfortunately, the QBL local will still have some issues - but these are somewhat tolerable. You can push the locals to 6th Ave via 63rd, but you still need some local service to LIC. So in addition to the normal and locals on QBL, you'd need another local service that makes its way to Queens Plaza, either or , each with its own positives and negatives. * It may be a political lift to make 75 Ave, Briarwood, Sutphin, and 169 into local stations, but doing so would allow us to run more QBL locals as well as more. If every existing train on the local will run to 6th Avenue, running locals to 179th will allow for a third service (G or R) that acts in addition to what is there currently, without taking away. If I can fit 30% more trains on the local with a new service pattern, there is a lot that can be done to service LIC.

A dream of mine for the SAS, as well as part and parcel to a wider deinterlined system, would be a giant station complex in northeast Midtown. Call it Bloomingdale Square or somehting appropriate for the neighborhood. It would link the 59th St station of , the Lex station on the 60th street line [current ] where 60th is the link from Astoria (and only Astoria) to the Broadway local, the Lex station on the 63rd street line [current ] but in my system 63rd is the link for most of the QBL local service to the 6th Ave local, and a 57th street station on the 2nd Ave line for SAS services. Four separate station platforms, all linked by free transfers. It may be a bit of a walk from SAS to the 63rd street line, though. I think given the way the tracks turn from 2nd to 63rd, such a thing may not be possible. I guess we'd still be stuck with and services on the Upper SAS that join in with . Then the V train would be a Queens-2nd Ave service to fill in the gaps. A lot of deinterlining, even in other parts of the system, would no longer be viable, unfortunately. It could mean EF along 53rd as the QBL expresses and MV along 63rd as the QBL locals with perhpas the addition of the G train on the QBL local to provide connections to Long Island City. Anyway, once you are south of 57th, there aren't many feasible connections to trunk lines that are possible, and each provide somewhat of a walk. at 53d/Lex, 4567 at 42nd, L at 14th. You really do need the Lower Manhattan transfers to make this work OK, because there are not that many in Midtown. I think that I would also prefer tying in north of Chambers, to provide direct SAS transfers to all that is over there. If not feasible, I don't see it as being a critical failure since I would provide a transfer between Bowery and Grand V. The JZ riders will still have the way to transfer to the Financial District, they just have to do it at Bowery, not Chambers. Chambers would still be better as it would allow riders to use SAS if an are too busy.

I'm not sure if vanschnookenraggen's plan to extend BD to Williamsburg Bridge is still a current plan of his. Like many others, we can propose things and then later refine and revise the plans. To me, it seems like the best approach is still to have going up 6th Avenue with going down Centre Street. Since I prefer routing SAS to the Nassau line, that would mean that would be truncated to Chambers. I agree that a new stattion should be built to facilitate transfers to . From that point west, riders would have transfers to all along the 6th Ave line and in addition, transfers to at Brodway-Laffayette, at W4th, at 14th, at 34th, at 42nd. Basically every existing line except . No easy transfer to SAS, though, except in upper east midtown at Lex/53rd station. For riders, more limited transfer option, but still a decent amount to get where people need to go. A new transfer to should be built. transfer at Essex, a new transfer to and SAS at Bowery should be provided, at Canal, and at Chambers. To reach the financial district, a transfer would be needed to SAS, 4,5,R,W trains. So no direct connection to 7th Avenue or 8th Avenue lines, but for anyone going in that direction, a transfer to could be done anywhere west of Myrtle to better reach west midtown. I don't like the idea of tying one of the SAS services directly to the Williamsburg Bridge. Such a service would have too few transfers to the other trunk lines.

I think something like that would be absolutely brilliant, and perhaps more tenable in the COVID and post-COVID world. It may not work on every line segment, but perhaps it can work on a lot of them. Depending on proximity, passengers on the closed segments could either take other lines or bus shuttles to a significant transfer point. FasTrack kind of worked in this way, except that what you are proposing isn't just doing the closure over 15 weekends, instead close it for 30 consecutive days while the work can continue unimpeded. It certainly is a more efficient way of doing things. I think in the post-COVID world this may be more feasible, because a business that is currenly allowing telework could provide for a temporary telework extension to those who live alonog the closed line, even if other employees are back to work as normal.

That seems like an interesting routing. From Chatham Square follow Park Row and link into the Nassau line somewhere south of the Chambers station. The digging on Park Row should be easier than on other portions of the route because much of the street is closed to regular traffic. While it would be nice to connect SAS to Chambers (either by routing it into the station or by building a new station at Police Plaza and providing a transfer), it does not seem to be a critical need. SAS trains can transfer to at Fulton and presumably if SAS trains will run into the Grand Street station a transfer could (and should) be provided to Bowery . So the only train that SAS will miss without a Chambers connection would be . So with the supposed routing, some SAS trains can continue into Brooklyn via the Montague tunnel and make all the transfers that the can make in Brooklyn. at Boro Hall, at Jay, and of course DeKalb and Atlantic. I imagine that half of the SAS trains will go in the tunnel and half will terminate at Broad. Likewise, half of the Broadway locals will terminate at Whitehall and half will continue into the tunnel. Both and the SAS service can then continue south as some form of 4th Ave local, perhaps to Bay Ridge and/or the West End line. Lengthening Fulton and Broad platforms is not necessarily cheap, but would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel on Water Street in the lowest portions of Manhattan? Would it be cheaper than a brand new tunnel to Brooklyn? Would a transfer from Fulton/Water be as convenient to trains as it would be if the platform were under Fulton/Nassau? IMO, the connections at Fulton alone, even without an extension to Brooklyn, and even without any other tansfers south of Grand, would fully integrate SAS into the system. And is the only remaining issue the feasibility of platform lengthening at two stations? We all know that platform lengthening was done in the past on the original IRT subway. Doing so here would be a good investment as well.

^^^^ One thing that I think we can all agree on is that we would like to see an increase in service. An increase in frequency along existing lines as well as an increase in reach with new extensions and branches. A big question with a lot of this is the how. There are a lot of positives to the Rockaway Beach Branch being utilized as a subway branch. It is certainly much cheaper than digging a new Woodhaven Blvd subway. Woodhaven has shown itself to be a significant transit corridor and the fact that there is already some infrastructure inplace that can be reused is helpful. We understand that it won't be cheap -- but it is still alot cheaper than building a whole new line somewhere else. One very nice thing about the QBL local lines, is that it can really use a new branch to increase operations. Currently, the QBL local is limited to 20 TPH due to Forest Hills turnbacks. Given current operations, we can add an additional 10 TPH to the QBL local line if we provide a place for it to go to the west and a new branch to divert some of the traffic away from Forest Hills. 10 TPH coming up the RBB can merge into the existing 20 TPH coming from Forest Hills. 10 TPH can go to the line, while the reamining 20 TPH can flow along and as they are currently doing. If we are stuck with EFMRG along Queens Blvd, I'm in favor of M serving RBB and GR serving Forest Hills. [This all assumes that every station east of Forest Hills is either an express or station and that is politically non-negotiable.] But if we take an RBB proposal in a different context, it can actually make a deinterlining plan much easier! If you wanted a "perfect" deinterlining of QBL, (and given the crowding it should certainly be considered), you will need to get all the Broadway BMT trains off QBL, assign all QBL locals to 53rd and all QBL expresses to 63rd (or vice versa) and assign all 63rd trains to the 6th Ave local and assign 53rd trains to 8th Ave. [Doing the above would also generally require addressing CPW making all of its exrpesses to 6th Ave and all the locals to 8th Ave or vice versa.] The problem when you look at it becomes how to actually assign the QBL trains. If you make all the expresses on 53rd and the locals on 63rd, you cut off the QBL local stops west of Roosevelt from reaching Queens Plaza and LIC ( a growing employment center). If you reverse it, you are making all of the 6th Ave locals into QBL express trains and there would be no feasible way to allow to be a QBL express without significant capital spending on extending platforms in eastern Brooklyn. These are not trivial problems and forms one reason why it is still necessary to have service along QBL. But the RBB can allow for us to rethink the issue. Assign all QBL expresses to 53rd continuing on to 8th Ave express and the Cranberry tunnel. This would allow us to have 20 TPH and trains emanating from Forest Hills, servicing the QBL local and continuing to 63rd and the 6th Ave local. And the new RBB branch of the QBL local will allow a new 10 TPH service to merge into the QBL local and allow 10 TPH to divert away from 63rd to service Queens Plaza and LIC and continue as a . The QBL express is completely deinterlined. The QBL local is partially deinterlined, with some interference with non-trunk lines like and and . Under such a scenario, IMO, the best operation would be from RBB and from Forest Hills during regular hours, and from Forest HIlls and from RBB during times when is truncated to Myrtle.

I don't see how Manhattan Bridge or Rutgers would be affected by any construction to Nassau. trains may be reduced in frequency and will probably need to terminate at Canal for the duration of construction. should still run normally.

One more thing: the plan to send all QBL locals to 63rd street will still leave a lack of connection for QBL local riders to LIC/Queens Plaza area. This is not an easy problem to fix, as each solution has its drawbacks. What I had proposed earlier was allowing G trains to also serve as a QBL local, but this can only be done as an ADDITIONAL service, not a replacement service. Forest Hills limits turnbacks to 20 TPH. If only 20 TPH is provided on the QBL local, all of those trains should go to Manhattan, but if we can somehow get more trains on the QBL local, like 30 TPH, then you can provide 10 TPH G trains in addition to the existing 20 TPH to Manhattan. My proposal made use of the 179th terminal, which is more capable of turning more trains. Another proposal would be to provide a new branch line for the locals, so that half can go to Forest Hills and half can go to the new branch. Obviously, a new branch is a bit more involved than simply rearrranging the existing trains in a better fashion. The new branches that are discussed (on this forum) are either RBB/QuuensLink or a line on the eastern LIE. Another option for JMZ service: J/Z skip stop from JC to Broad St as is currently done, and then sending all the M trains to Bay Ridge. When M operates as a shuttle nights and weekends, then J would be extended to Bay Ridge.

There is a lot to like here, even if this is not quite what I had in mind. NR is a completely deinterlined route. Upper SAS - Broadway express - Brighton. Very good. W is separated from other trains in revenue service and will merge with other lines in off-peak non-revenue service to reach CI yard. OK. I do conceptually like the idea of keeping Willy Br trains off the 6th Ave line, but I know that it means heavy transferring at Essex. [So this forced transfer would be very incovenient for current M passengers.] I also don't think it will work to have J local and Z express west of Bwy jct. If JZ are skip-stop, they really have to keep an equivalent service pattern west of Bwy Jct. I also don't think we need a second line to serve West End. I would instead prefer the following: M: Metropolitan - Chambers. (weekend/late night shuttle) J: Parsons/Archer - Broad. Local. (no service weekend/ late night) Z: Broadway Junction - Nassau line - Bay Ridge 95th. Peak direction express between Bwy Jct. and Marcy. Service extended to Parsons/Archer weekend and late night. One very nice feature of the above is that it will allow for more streamlined service for some of the other routes. BQ is CPW express - 6th express - 4th express. DF is QBL local- 6th local - Culver. The big problem is the 8th Ave line. The QBL express is very busy. It will take up the whole capacity of the 8th Ave express. It will not leave any room for your E train to merge in to provide Fulton local service. It would seem better to have AK be the exclusive QBL express - 8th express - Fulton service and to have both C and E terminate at WTC. You could have a third service to provide service as the Fulton local, but that would still need to be connected to 8th express/QBL express, not from the 8th local. It would seem better to have the following: A: JC - QBL express - 8th express - Fulton express - Rock Pk K: 179th - Hillside local - QBL express - Fulton express - Far Rock H 179th - Hillside express - QBL express - Fulton local - Leffterts CE - are the 8th locals and will be as you describe in your post, except that both trains will terminate at WTC.

When thinking about the SAS phases to Downtown, there are two main goals that the new constructions should achieve: 1) connect SAS into the lower Manhattan area, and 2) integrate further extensions of SAS better into Brooklyn. A big problem with the current plans for SAS is that there are too few opportunities to connect with the rest of the system. A plan to have the SAS meet the 6th Ave express trains at a cross-platform transfer would be very good. It will allow an easy transfer to the south Brooklyn trains, while still maintaing a connection to Downtown along Water Street. IMO, it would be even more ideal, if SAS trains could run in the Nassau street lines. This would allow some SAS service directly into Southern Brooklyn via Montague tunnel. Having all the SAS service connect to the Willamsburg Bridge would not be ideal, because the trains following that rail pattern would avoid all of those connection points in Lower Manhattan.

The first part of the system to deinteline is the Broadway BMT main line. Run as a 96th - Broadway express - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach train. Doing this would require some level of re-allocation of the trains along the Broadway line so that it can work well. Decrease* service levels on and and increase service levels on . trains will be the sole trains serving Astoria, and they will run Astoria - Broadway local - Whitehall, but some trains will be extended into Brooklyn to probably the Bay Pkwy station on the West End line. * Decreasing service levels is only necessary if the deinterlining is meant to be revenue neutral. If service levels on the Broadway lines overall are constant, you will need to allocate more trains to to adequately serve Astoria. However, if it is not revenue neutral, the deinterlining will allow for more service on all of the lines and so a net service increase would be possible.

I think this discussion is brilliant because it gets to the heart of what deinterlining is and what it can accomplish. In short, the purpose of deinterlining is to run the system in a much more efficient way so that more trains can run without the need for larger capital projects. The whole goal is to enable a service increase, running more frequent trains, around the system, as well as running them more efficiently by minimimizing the delay-inducing merges, and to the extent that merges do exist, limit their impact within specific areas of the system. It is undoubetdly true that part of the way of getting each trunk line to run at its maximum is by improving terminal operations. And it is also understood that a general move toward deinterlining would mean that most passengers would be transferring more and/or walking a bit more outside of the system. And to enable this, yes, there probably should be some money spent on track switches, station improvements, platrform widenings, new station exits and entrances. These types of constructions are far cheaper than a brand new line to enable additional capacity in the existing system. In my mind, I view what is happening along the Broadway BMT as being a terrible use of the available capacity. Bringin in a driving analogy, it seems equivalent to having drivers in the left lane, and drivers in the right lane and basically being a road hog and driving on both lanes at the same time. If were restricted to the left lane (by not merging from express to local), the road's capacity is better utilized. But the Broadway BMT isn't the only place this is happening, it's just the worst example because it happens right in the heart of Midtown so it effects a majority of the line's passengers. So I don't view issue #4 as a deinterlining problem -- running more service is the goal. Running more service without the need to build multiple new lines.

^^^^^^ local and express is probably more likely to happen under current MTA*, but it is unfortunate because it will keep some of the merges that still plague the system. I do agree that it is better than current practice. If one were to isolate the "reverse merges" from the forward merges, (because the reverse merges are far more likely the cause of propogation of system wide delays) you will notice the following: Current MTA: reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av reverse merge near 36th reverse merge near Queens Plaza The often proposed plan to move to 53rd and to 63rd is an improvment as it removes one of these merge points: reverse merge at 53rd/ 6 Av reverse merge near 36th Your plan also has two reverse merges: reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av reverse merge on 63rd in Manhattan My plan only has one reverse merge, and it only affects the locals: reverse merge near 36th [or at 36th in my alternate] The QBL expresses on my plan do not face any merges at all between Union Turnpike and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. --------------- Another way of looking at it is to identify merges where one track has two services before the merge and the parallel track has one service before the merge and then after the merge there is a switch as the first track has one service and the second track has two services. An example of this is near Canal [in both directions] - north of the merge and - after the merge. In effect, this merge has the trains shifting from local to express and vice versa. Another example (derided by nearly everyone on this forum) is the NQ-RW to Q-NRW merge near Herald Sqaure. I don't see how a merge along 63rd is substantially different from the two mentioned above, since you have - on one side and - on the other side. You still have the shifting tracks, but instead of shifting between the Broadway express and Broadway local, you shift between the Broadway express and the 6th Ave local. At least, the 6th Ave local has more room to accept the , since trains already diverted at 53rd. But the trains are also making a similar move, - to the south of 53rd/6 Av and - to the north. So while your plan is definitely an improvement over the existing operation, since you eliminate QBL expresses merging with QBL locals, allow better utilization of the three East River tunnels, and reduce the number of reverse merges from 3 to 2, it still may not be enough of an improvement in the operation of the QBL expresses to significantly increase the service there. * From the creation of a 6th Ave subway, there seems to have always been one 8th Ave - 53rd service and one 6th Ave - 53rd service running. My plan is very radical to force all 53rd trains to 8th Ave in order to completely eliminate merging on the QBL expresses, but it will force transferring for any QBL express passenger needing to access 6th Ave.

This is amazingly helpful. What is the source of this information? Is it based on reading the schedules or somehow knowing about the various terminal operations? If this information is accruate, perhaps it should be pinned somewhere on the board for easy access. Is it really true that 179th can take 30 TPH on the local tracks and 30 TPH on the express, for a total of 60 TPH? That would be truly impressive. If that is indeed the case, some of my proposed plans creating a new terminal at Parsons/Hillside for express trains, in order to allow more local trains to turn at 179th, would be unnecessary.

Part of the problem that my messages (and all relevant replies) have been trying to address has been a way to deinterline the B division, and particularly the QBL. At first blush, it would seem that this could be accomplished by sending a full load of 8th Ave trains to 53rd street and the full 6th Ave local to 63rd street and then have the QBL locals tied in to 53 and the QBL expresses tied in to 63 (or vice versa). One obvious benefit of doing so would be to maximize the utilization of the 53rd and 63rd tunnels and also not gumming up the works on QBL with the Broadway line. The problem is in how this is to be accomplished. If you tie the QBL expresses to 53rd and the QBL locals to 63rd, you run into the problem of passengers on the QBL local stations west of Roosevelt not having access to the LIC area (Queens Plaza, Court Square) without some backtracking. If you tie the QBL expresses to 63rd and the QBL locals to 53rd, you run the problem of making an express train. B ecause of the limitations on the Eastern Division stations, is a shorter train and won't have enough room for the high demand QBL express. So my solution to the issue was to run 3 services on the QBL local. The QBL express will emanate from either Parsons/Hillside (18 TPH) or Parsons/Archer (12 TPH) and will then continue through the 53rd tunnel, 8th Ave express, and service the Fulton local and the Fulton express. The QBL local will also be run at capacity. Now, we have 20 TPH emanating from Forest Hills. I propose 30 TPH emanating from 179th instead. I think this is possible, given that the Hillside expresses will terminate at Parsons/Hillside and the unique layout of 179th does allow it to have more turning capacity than Forest Hills. The locals will consist of (10 TPH), (10 TPH) and a third train (*) (10 TPH). and will of course use the 63rd tunnel to the 6th Ave local tracks. The (*) service will not use 63rd -- its purpose is to connect the QBL locals to Queens Plaza. The question then becomes where will this (*) train go west of Queens Plaza? Three possibilities: 1) 53rd street tunnel. I don't like this as it will limit the ability of having an exlusive unimpeded QBL express. It also means fewer QBL express trains. 2) 60th street tunnel. (*) train will run like the current . I don't like the idea because we see that doing this does bring QBL delays to Broadway and Broadway delays to QBL 3) BQ Crosstown line. (*) train will be an extension of . We know that relatively few QBL passengers are gcurrently going any place other than Manhattan, so to divert 1/3 of the service away from Manhattan will certainly have to be justified. It may be given an increase in jobs in the LIC area and that the train will provide a connection at Queens Plaza for any QBL local passenger west of Roosevelt to the trains if 53rd or 8th Ave service is desired. Plus, I'm not diverting any of the current QBL locals to , the will represent a service increase along the QBL local from 20 TPH to 30 TPH. And of course, the sytemwide beneft of not interlining Broadway trains to QBL is also significant. So my preference is but if that is really not feasible, then . Sigh. It is still better than waht exists curerntly, but I do not like to see this interlining continue. I agree with comments that indicate that Broadway service is not needed per se with respect to QBL, since there is a 6th Ave local or a Lex station close to every Broadway local station in Manhattan. With a QBL local-6th Ave local train, you can reach everywhere that the Broadway line reaches either directly, or with transfers at either Lex/63rd or Herald Sqaure.

^^^^^ Right. If you maintain service to QBL local, you have some interlining, but it won't muck up the whole system. You can still achieve a general deinterlining with some exceptions. Division A is kind of like that. and are compeletely deinterlined, even though are not. Of course, fixing Rogers Jct and the 149th st area in the Bronx could do wonders for the IRT, it isn't as much of a critical problem because there isn't nearly the same level of merging as with Divison B. That being said, if I created three services on the QBL local, running them all to 179th, I would have no merging on the QBL local, and only some partial deintelining that will only affect 6th Ave local and Broadway local. The other trunk lines (8th local, 8th express, 6th express, Bwy express) can still be deitnerlined, and thus run more trains through. CPW local-8th local-WTC. A to Wash Hts, C as the Concourse local and only runs rush hours. is basically an variant that goes to Bronx instead of Wash Hts. Deinterlined. CPW express-6th express-4th express. to Inwood, to Concourse. to Sea Beach, to Bay Ridge. B and D only interfere with each other. Deinterlined. 2nd Ave in the UES - Bwy express - Brighton line, with express and local. N and Q only interfere with each other. Deinterlined. QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Fulton line. Given that this is one of the busiest lines in the system, keeping this deinterlined is very important. Doing this means that E and K only interfere with each other, so they are deinterlined. QBL express people that want 6th Ave service can transfer at 7 Av or W4. QBL express that want the can transfer at Queens Plaza. I was thinking that can run from Jam Ctr to Euclid with 12 TPH and the K can run with 18 TPH as the Fulton express, split between Lefferts and Far Rockaway. One novelty would be to have the Parsons/Hillside station be the terminus of the train. Some switches between the two express tracks would be needed, but basically, can terminate there witout intefering with the locals, which will allow maximum throughput for both expresses and locals. For passengers, it would be very similar to Brighton Beach - passengers will board a frequent QBL local at 179 or 169 and then transfer at Parsons/Hillside for the express. WIth that out of the way, the rest of the B division (except ) is somewhat interlined: will run from 179th as QBL locals - 63 - 6th Ave locals. Each will run at 1/3. will continue onto Culver with some interlining with , will continue onto Williamsburg Bridge with some interlining with . On the north side, will share tracks with from 179th to 36th. 1/3 F, 1/3 V, 1/3 R. will both run as Broadway locals through the Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local to the West End line (eith construction of new switches). On the north end to Astoria and to QBL local. R will still interline with F and M. R will also be extended to 179th. 2/3 W to 1/3 R. So we can maintain some level of interlining on the QBL local and the Williamsburg Bridge line. Thus, FGMRWJZ are not deinterlined, and any problem on one of those lines could affect the others. But problems on the FGMRWJZ would not affect any other line as the other four trunks are deinterlined. Amazing improvements and consistency can occur for the 8th Ave lines, 6th express, and the Broadway express. And even though the other lines will still have some interference, it is a lot less than what exists today.

^^^^^ One more crack at de-interlining while keeping a midtown M train: CPW locals - 8th Ave local - WTC QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton lines CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express in Brooklyn QBL local - 63rd - 6th Ave local - to Culver, to Myrtle Now the obvious issue with this is that QBL locals will no longer service Queens Plaza or 23rd, making it very difficult for anybody who lives at a QBL station west of Roosevelt from reaching Long Island City. This is why previous iterations had QBL express to 63rd and QBL locals to 53rd. The only way to solve this problem is to have a partial interlining on the QBL local, I see two possible ways: 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. will serve to allow for QBL local traffic to reach Queens Plaza station. It is also good for customers to have access into more of Queens again. 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Sigh. Bringing back the train to QBL. Limit it to 1/3 of the line's capacity. This would necessitate having 2/3 and 1/3 along the Broadway local. would run as Astoria-Bwy local-West End and would be 179th - Broadway local - West End (or Bay Ridge). This may work as we no longer will have crossing from express to local along the Broadway main, but I'd strongly prefer not mixing the Broadway trains into QBL. My preference would be for the train, since it will limit the merging to just one trunk line (6th Ave local) instead of two (6th Ave local and Broadway local).

AC local on 8th Ave would necessilarily mean and possibly running as 8th Ave expresses. Both would run from Queens along the 53rd tunnel, via 8th Ave express, and then service Cranaberry tunnel and the Fulton line. Would doing so allow us to keep and as locals on QBL? Would it be OK to run an train as a local from 179th to the 53rd street tunnel and then as an express along 8th Ave and Fulton to terminate at Far Rockaway? I was afraid that this would be too long of a line to run with a significant local section in Queens. But if it is feasible, then certainly the switch can be made. A and C would be CPW locals terminating at WTC, B and D would be CPW expresses running their routes to the 4th Ave express in Brooklyn, and E and K would be long lines serving as QBL locals, 8th Ave expresses, and then running the Fulton line with as the Fulton express and as the Fulton local to Euclid. I do like the idea of having all servicing 50th without the need for a capital expenditure. Brown-M is worse for the customers along the Broadway Brooklyn line, the problem is keeping the Orange-M would amount to so many needed merges that will limit QBL capacity. One way of doing it is the way you outlined above. Another possibility, not yet discsussed, are the W4th switches that allow 8th Ave locals onto Houston and 6th Ave locals onto the southern 6th Ave towards WTC. Utilizing this in a full system can be a completely out of the box system change, outlining it quickly. & blue-M - CPW local - 8th Ave local - W4 switch - to Culver and blue-M to Middle Village. : QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel (limited to 20 TPH so that can merge into the tunnel) : CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express - QBL express - 63rd - 6th Ave local - W4 switch- F (10 TPH) to merge in to Cranberry tunnel and V (20 TPH) to terminate at WTC.

I ran out of emojis, let me address Vulturious' comments: A lot of good points. Let me address them. 1-2. The nomenclature itself is largely immaterial to me. You are correct that under my plan = . I like keeping the N designation with the idea that perhaps an extended SAS in the uptown direction will need to split into two, with one service to W.125th and the other to the Bronx. In that case the N designation would be needed to differentiate from Q. I do not want to have a Broadway service on the QBL as that will impact the capacity on the East River tunnels to Queens. Having some of the Astoria-West End trains run as an express, designated as a or a <R> is certainly possible, but keep in mind that to achieve maximum utilization of existing infrastructure all of the West End trains need to run as 4th Ave locals through the Montague tunnel. If you want a true West End rush hour express, it will have to run as a 6th Ave express. Designate it as an orange K and run it identically to my D train, except running a West End express instead of a Sea Beach express. This might be a needed compromise to get West End folks on board to losing their express train. Doing so would (slightly) impact the running of the 6th Ave express and would also force some rush hour trains to terminate at Whitehall and reduce service on the 4th Ave local. 4-6.) The purpose of the switch is to allow for 4th Ave express trains to run to Bay Ridge - this is done so that Bay Ridge trains will have access to a yard (the IND yards in Upper Manhattan). If the yard issue wasn't a factor, it would be a lot simpler to simply have run to Bay Ridge and have service the West End line. THe West End folks would prefer keeping their 6th Ave express and will certainly be annoyed by any plan that will force them to transfer to avoid the extra time of running through Lower Manhattan. However, I don't see how you get around the yard issue as teh Broadway lines do not have access to a yard on the uptown side, unless you run on QBL, which I really don't want to do. Ideally, full service would run at all times, but cost issues make that unfeasible. I planned this so that except for the Bay Ridge portion, runs concurrent with another train line. WHen is not operating a full line, it can be re-created by transferring to at 36 St in Brooklyn and then transferring to at 145th street in Manhattan [which will service all stops between 145th and 168th on weekends, I neglected to mention earlier]. You do raise a good point about running and in Brooklyn. If were instead run as a 59th to 95th shuttle, parking itself on the express tracks north of 59th to turn around, could the train run as a local and then use the proposed switch to the express tracks between 36th and Atlantic? I envisioned a weekend 4th Ave service as basically being express and local with a Bay Ridge shuttle - but perhaps the track layout makes that unfeasible. Or another possibility is to swtich the B and D southern terminals, as you suggested, and then run express, local, and a Sea Beach shuttle. That would give Bay Ridge access to the Concourse yards. Late nights, I assumed that there is funding for only two lines on CPW. If that's the case, you need one line for Inwood an one line for Concourse and also one line for 8th Ave and one line for 6th Ave. It is for this reason that I have and running, with replacing late nights. It is a little anomalous that will run further north late nights than it does at any other time, but that would be the only way to acheive that. If can operate in Bronx and Manhattan late nights as well, then great. But if not, run both and as late night locals as I outlined.

I would like to think that 179th can turn everything, but I'm not sure. If there is no short-turning at Forest Hills, then all of the QBL locals and all of the QBL expresses (save the 12 TPH going to Jamaica Center) need to turn there under my above plan. It is a lot of trains (I estimate 18 TPH and 20 TPH ), but if 179th can handle it - go for it. I imagine that with both F and V riding Culver, there would be a higher capability to run a Culver express. Doing so is not critical with my plan, instead running F and V to the Rutgers tunnel to better utilize it is the main point. Also, as I have this line connected as the QBL express, full length trains need to be run on this line, so 6th Ave locals are not able to run an service. While I'd like to see more transfers as well, I try to focus on the most needed. A big station complex by Bloomingdale's is one, as it will provide a connection from and . QBL expresses will have a connection to all of the Lexington line, a cross-transfer to the Broadway express, and a regular transfer to the Broadway local. I believe such a station would obviate the need to run any Broadway service on QBL, which IMO is necessary for effective deinterlining. A connection from Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza would also be helpful.