mrsman

When looking at deinterlining, I prefer to utilize a systematic approach. Given the existing system, a lot of the decision making is already made, given existing track geometries and layouts. You start with the 6 midtown track pairs of the B division: 1) Broadway local 2) Broadway express 3) 6th Ave local 4) 6th Ave express 5) 8th Ave local 6) 8th Ave express Next, see where these track pairs connect to, first on the uptown/Queens approaches. Keeping in mind to connect one midtown track pair to one uptown approach, as much as possible: 1) 60th st tunnel to Astoria 2) 2nd Ave line to 96/2 3) 63rd st tunnel to QBL [express or local] 4) CPW express OR CPW local 5) CPW local OR 53rd st tunnel to QBL [local or express] 6) 53rd st tunnel to QBL [local or express] OR CPW express Here, we see that there are only two choice questions to make: a) whether the 6th Ave express connects to CPW express or to CPW local - the answer will dictate how 5 and 6 are to be connected and b) whether the 53rd tunnel connects to QBL express and 63rd tunnel to QBL local or vice versa. A hybrid approach on question b) is also possible, but it would be significantly less efficient. Once uptown approaches are decided, one then has to consider the downtown/Brooklyn approaches. Within the confines of the current configuration, there are only 5 tunnels/bridge track pairs to Brooklyn that connect to B division trunk lines. This will mean that one of the lines will get terminated in lower Manhattan, which will impact capacity. Also, the Williamsburg Bridge line also adds complexity to the analysis- which should be given proper consideration. 1) Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local 2) Manhattan Bridge south tracks to 4th Ave express OR Brighton 3) Rutgers tunnel [and possibly divert some trains to Williamsburg Bridge] 4) Manhattan Bridge north tracks to Brighton OR 4th Ave express 5) WTC terminal for the 8th Ave local trains 6) Cranberry tunnel to Brooklyn's Fulton line For the analysis on the south side, once some of the biq questions are addressed, like whether 6th Ave express goes to Brighton or 4th Ave, then you will need to consider the issues with regard to all of the different branches. 4th Ave trains branch to West End, Sea Beach, and Bay Ridge. Fulton trains can terminate at Euclid or branch to Lefferts, FR, or Rockaway Park. Rutgers tunnel trains can terminate at Church or go all the way down the Culver line. Williamsburg Bridge trains can go to Middle Village or Jamaica. ----- Given the above, I present my ideas: 1) Astoria - 60th st tunnel - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - West End line - Coney Island. Coney Island yard will service this train. 2) 96th/2nd - via existing 2nd Ave line - Broadway express - M Br S - Brighton line - Coney Island. will also service this line as a Brighton express that terminates at Brighton Beach. will not operate nights or weekends. 3) Jamaica Center - QBL express -63rd st tunnel- 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - Coney Island. 179th - Hillside express - QBL express- 63rd st tunnel - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line. The operates as a Culver line short, with some trains terminating at 2nd/Houston and some terminating at Church Ave. will not operate nights or weekends. A connection from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex stations needs to be constructed to enable to have an easier connection to . 4) 168th St - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - 4th Ave local south of 36th - Bay Ridge. Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse line - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach line - Coney Island. trains will be serviced by yards in upper Manhattan. New switches from local to express needs to be constructed on the 4th Ave line south of where the West End line diversts from the line, so that can switch from express to local without interfering with . 5) 179th - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd st tunnel - 8th Ave local - WTC terminal. Some trains may terminate in Forest Hills. 6) Inwood/207th St - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway OR Lefferts. Norwood - Concourse line - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid. Alternatively, Lefferts trains could be designated by its own letter like . The service on the A,B,C, and D lines is a little tricky. During rush hours, it is as shown above, with servicing as Concourse express and as the Concourse local. Off-peak weekdays, will service all Concourse stops and will terminate at 145th. On weekends, will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge, will service all Concourse stops and will terminate at 145th. On late nights, will service its full route to FR as a local, there will be a Euclid-Lefferts shuttle, will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge, will not operate at all, and will be extended to Norwood. We bring back the brown M, so everyone from the Williamsburg Bridge lines will need to transfer to make it to Midtown. I also envision track switches to enable and to service the upper level of 50th without interfering with or trains as those trains merge into the 8th/CPW local tracks.

The idea is whether or not you can make smaller connection changes to the system, without forcing a new East River tunnel. A new east river tunnel would be extremely costly. So instead, you route the SAS into Nassau. This is done by the construction of a new tunnel between Grand St (SAS, ) and Chambers ( ) . The Chambers station has a lot of tracks, the station can be realigned so that the and terminate at Chambers and the SAS trains continue through Chambers to reach Fulton, Broad, and the Montague tunnel. The question then remains about what should run in the Montague tunnel. Right now, the default is that the tunnel is exclusively for use by Broadway locals, and not even every Broadway local uses it as trains terminate at Whitehall. One possibility is that you continue leaving Montague tunnel to be under the exclusive (revenue) use by Broadway locals. One train can continue under existing trackage as the 4th Ave local in Brooklyn, and with a little bit of new construction under Brooklyn land, the other trai can be run thru the Transit museum to serve as the Fulton local to Euclid. Doing this would mean terminating all SAS trains in Lower Manhattan at Broad Street Anothe possibilty is to terminate all (revenue) Broadway locals at Whitehall and give over the exclusive use of the Montague tunnel to SAS trains. As in the previous paragraph, the Montague tunnel trains (now being SAS instead of Broadway locals) could run as 4th Ave locals or Fulton locals, with construction of a tunnel in Brooklyn from the Montague tunnel mouth to the Transit Museum stop. One benefit of doing this would be to provide more connections in Brooklyn for the SAS, but it would be at the expense of Broadway local service and possibly keeping Broadway local service from reaching a yard in Brooklyn. Another possibility is a hybrid approach. 1/2 of Broadway locals and 1/2 of SAS trains terminate in Lower Manhattan (Whitehall or Broad) with the other half of trains continuing into the Montague tunnel. Currently, both the Rutgers tunnel and the Montague tunnel are not running at capacity. More trains should be routed through those tunnels before a new Manhattan-Brooklyn tunnel is contemplated.

^^^^ There are several ways to go about making a new connection btwn Brooklyn and Lower manhattan. One set involves making a new tunnel and one set involves routing more trains through the existing tunnels. If you restrict yourself to using only the existing tunnels, then that necessarily will mean impacting the capacity of the lines that feed the tunnel. One of the benefits of a general deinterlining system is that it maximizes capacity by removing the crossing and merging interference among the train lines. Currerntly, both the Broadway local and the Nassau local tracks feed into the Montague tunnel. There is no regular Nassau service into the tunnel, but if there was (and it did exist back in the days of the rush hour brown M to Brooklyn), it would necessarily mean that Broadway local would have to run fewer trains. But it may not be necessary for Broadway local to be at full capacity - Broadway local will probably meet its demand at a lower capaicty given the existence of Broadway express and other train routes that parallel much of the Broadway local line. So if Broadway local and 2nd Ave (via Nassau) both feed into the Montague tunnel, neither Broadway local nor 2nd Ave can run at full capacity. This means short turning some of the trains at City Hall, Whitehall, or Broad St, or diverting some trains onto other lines (and causing more intermingling). But if this is OK with you, then you are correct that you can run half of the Broadway locals and half of the 2nd Ave trains into the Montague tunnel, and then split the trains in Brooklyn, with half going to 4th Ave local and half going to Fulton local by way of the Transit museum stop. Here is another possibility: Vanshnookenraggen's deinterlining with 2nd Ave plan that you quoted above truncates the Broadway express at 57th. There is no place for the Broadway express to go north of there since every "portal" further uptown or to Queens is occupied by another trains route. So let's say we cancel the Broadway express, and we run an Astoria-Broadway local-Manhattan Bridge-Brighton line train. This would mean that the stations on the Broadway local south of Canal do not get served. Much of this section could get served if the 8th Ave local trains south of WTC were connected into this line to service the Rector and Whitehall stations [City Hall and Cortlandt would close]. Terminate the 8th Ave local at Whitehall, and provide that all 2nd Ave trains have exclusive access to the Montague tunnel and then in Brooklyn split the 2nd Ave trains with half going to the Fulton local and half going to the 4th Ave local on its way to the West End line.

Lots of good discussion on the deinterlining subject here. Keep it up! It would seem to be important to keep the locals and expresses separated on QBL, so have all the expresses on 53rd and have some locals servicing 63rd and 60th. As part of larger deinterlining "lite" of the B division, I would call for and to serve as 8th Ave exp-53rd-QBL exp trains and and to serve as the QBL locals. THe would still be needed to run in order to connect QBL local stations to LIC. and are Broadway expresses from 96/2 into Brooklyn. from Forest Hills joins the full time from Astoria as the Broadway locals. would have increased frequency to adequately serve Astoria, but critically, we avoid having any trains serving on both local and express tracks along the Broadway BMT in Manhattan (as the current N service does). BDFM as currently run, except that and are locals along CPW and and switch tunnels. When does not run to Queens, will run on the 63rd tunnel as an express in Queens. and are express. is local to WTC. Very clean, the only train will mix with is the . One key aspect of my idea is that the number of trains on each line isn't necessarily equal. I envision 14 TPH and 14 TPH which will be paired with 7 TPH . This means a 2:1 ratio between M and R and W and R. So the primary local train on QBL serves 63rd and the primary local train on Broadway serves Astoria, but there is still a limited amount of trains that will occupy both sets of tracks as an to serve QBL local connection to LIC and the 456 trains and any areas of the city that are uniquely served by the Broadway line. [For most of Midtown M and R are a block apart, so most riders can take either train.]

This is it, in a nutshell. The city did buy the whole RBB. The part south of Liberty was converted to subway standards and connected to the Fulton el along Liberty. The northern part was still run as an LIRR shuttle that connected with the LIRR main line, until 1962. When LIRR abandoned service, the city had the physical means, but not the monetary means or the political means to turn the Rego Park - Ozone Park section as a subway line. It is true that such a line would have limited utility unless it was connected to some new line to take it into Manhattan. But it is also true that by essentially abandoning it in place, they made the process of rehabilitating the line that much more expensive. And also made it politically harder to reintroduce service on the line. So if the city did start running a subway shuttle from 1962 on from Rego Park to Rockaway Park, with transfers available to the Far Rockaway service, the Lefferts Blvd service, and the line, it would be far easier to eventually find the money and the will to connect it to the QBL main line. The fact that they did not run any trains at all for 60 years on this stretch basically means that we will never see trains along this stretch ever again. So while we may be upset at today's politicians for not taking up the QueensLink cause, that is a real uphill battle these days. And there were similar battles involving the High line. Certainly there were some transit advocates who were hoping that it could form some type of far west side transit line, perhaps an extension of to Lower Manhattna. But those pipe dreams were really not feasible and converting the line to the aerial park was the best choice for the high line, under the circumstances.

Deactivated railroads either stay abandoned or become trails. Its a sad commentary. I credit the city for buying the corridor, when LIRR wanted to sell it in the 1950s. I also credit the city for running subway trains on the southern part of the corridor and into the Rockaways. In retrospect, it seems like it would have been a lot better, if the city ran the subway from Whitepot Jct to the Rockaways with transfers to and . (Probably also a track connection to so that the trains can reach other yards for service). In that way, you wouldn't have this abandoned section in the first place. But the city did not see the value of a N-S Queens link. They decided to connect it to Manhattan in the easiest way possible, so connected to (A). And while there were later plans to have the line connect to the Queens bypass and 63rd, the right of way were not availabe upon the initial purchase of the trackway, when LIRR was still a private railroad. LIRR was not selling any of the main line right of way between LIC and Whitepot Jct, when they were ready to sell the Rockaway branch.

Is 205-Far Rock the longest possible routing for a single train in the system?

So during the reroute, does it mean that were all running through Cranberry on the same track pair all the way from Fulton street (Manhattan) to Jay street? That would be a major conga line.

I would assume the thinking was to provide service in a way so that more of Manhattan is within reasonable walking distance of the subway. There are parts of Manhattan along the upper East side (East End Ave) and also the Lower east side/Alphabet city, where even a walk from the East River to 2nd Ave is a considerable distance. It certainly explains why the old 2nd ave el moved to 1st ave south of 23rd street. Notwithstanding that, though, there are some very good arguments for running along 3rd Ave through the core of Midtown, even if running along 2nd Ave north of 72nd and south of 23rd. Namely, you would provide service into the main CBD if you are one avenue closer and you are also closer to the Lex line which would allow for transfers to the crosstown subways on 63rd, 60th, 53rd, and 42nd by providing a station on 3rd Ave with a connection to the existing Lex

Thank you so much for this map. You have brought a lot of good ideas to the discussion. First, the intersection of lines at 63rd and 2nd. You have going on 63rd and going on 2nd. transitions as an upper 2nd and lower 63rd (to 6th Ave) and the "space" that is displaced by it is taken up by V, which transitions as an upper 63rd to Queens and a lower 2nd to Downtown. Is this operationally similar to the current operations at Gold street interlocking where is Broadway-Brighton, is 6th-4th, is the transition from Broadway to 4th and is the transition from 6th-Brighton? While Gold street does cause delays, we know that with careful planning one can ensure that there is no holdup here. and can transverse at the same time without interfering with each other and so can and . But if and both come off the bridge at the same time, we know that there will be delays since both cannot occupy the Brighton tracks at the same time, and thus we have cascading delays (that de-interlining seeks to avoid). Also, I suppose one could decide to truncate and at 57th/6th and then have the Broadway express trains continue on 63rd with to 125th/2nd and to the QB express? Whichever service (6th or Broadway) is truncated to 57th would probably be limited in the number of TPH that can serve the line. Overall, it is probably better to leave it as you did and have the Broadway express line limited to the turning capacity of 57th/7th, since it only serves one line, but the 6th Ave local will carry all of the Midtown passengers of both Culver and Myrtle (and transfers from the Jamaica line as well). Furthermore, one can replicate the pre-SAS operating pattern where some of the Astoria trains go express. If the express trains start at 57th, there will be less interference if the makes the local to express switch there. I just wanted to point out that trunk lines that terminate without splitting into two branches would be more limited in the number of trains that service it. So the 8th Ave local couldn't possibly run 30 TPH, if all service terminates at WTC, since the service on the line would be limited by the turning capacity of WTC. (Broadway expresses would be similarly limited if all Broadway expresses terminated at 57th.) If we assume that the future phases of SAS has no budget for the Whitehall-Court tunnel that trains will use on the above map, will it then make sense to run Q from 57th to CI via Brighton line, N from Astoria via Bwy and Brighton express to Brighton Beach and R as the Astoria-Whitehall Broadway local? I definitely see the benefits of having 2nd Ave trains instead of Broadway locals serving the Montague tunnel and the West End line. And, finally, is there any feasible way to have both T and V going straight down 2nd Ave without turning so that F and M can go straight down 63rd without turning and establishing a transfer between the two lines? Say a station on the SAS at 61st and a walkway from the existing 63rd/Lex station where we can also tie in 59th/Lex. Sort of a gateway station complex for the northeast corner of Midtown that services 6th Ave locals (Queens express)*, Broadway locals (Astoria), SAS, Lex locals, and Lex expresses. But doing so in this manner will avoid the interlining that would otherwise occur at 63rd/2nd under the above map. * If F and M are along 63rd, I would imagine you would prefer to send these as Queens locals due to the platform length issues on the Myrtle line. I know one of your other maps had 8th-53rd-QB express and 6th-63rd-QB local for that reason. In order to preserve connectivity between the QB local stations and LIC, the 8th-53rd line has to be connected to the QB local, so that would still force all 6th-63rd trains to the QB express. If that is the case, I can see three ways of addressing the short platforms: a) lengthen the platforms (duh) b) and orange-H will be QB express-63-6 Ave trains, and both services will go to the Rutgers tunnel. This will force M to Chambers and all M customers must transfer at Essex, Bowery (to Grand street hopefully), or Canal for Midtwon service. c) Truncating and services at 57th/6th and having the QB express trains go via 63rd to the Broadway express. and would now serve as QB express trains.

While the M-R branch may be difficult to construct, I take issue with the notion that it would necessarily limit the number of trains that would service the QB local stations. The locals are already limited to 20 TPH by Forest Hills terminal. Potentially, if 30 TPH were to come from Manhattan, 10 TPH can serve LGA and the remaining 20 TPH can continue to Forest Hills. Of course, with all the issues and merges that are present on the M and R lines, that is not likely to happen.

All of the above discussion does make it clear that it would be quite difficult to de-interline the system. I still do beleive that it is a worthwhile goal because it would reduce the merging and allow for as many trains as possible through the existing tunnels without new construction. An alternative that I was thinking of to deal with the QBL problem would be to extend the to Forest Hills, along the existing QB line. OK, so 12 TPH from JC, 9 TPH from 179 and 9 TPH from 179th are the QBL express trains. THese all run to 53rd and the 8th Ave express to the Cranberry tunnel. In Brooklyn, the can run as the Fulton express to Far Rockaway, the is a Fulton express to Lefferts and is the Fulton local to Euclid. 15 TPH are the QBL locals that run from 179 thru 63rd and the 6th Ave local to the Culver line. 7.5 TPH and 7.5 TPH both start at Forest Hills and run along the QBL local. continues via 63rd along and then its current routing to service Myrtle Ave. provides the connection for all the QBL local trains to Queens Plaza, Court Square and then continuing along the Crosstown route to Brooklyn. My thinking is that preserving a connection from the QBL local stations between QP and Roosevelt to QP is important, but not at the expense of limiting the QBL express by introducing merges on the QBL express. The QBL express would be de-interlined since all of the expresses go to 8th Avenue express and all of the 8th Ave expresses go to QBL express. The all serve as one closed system. The QBL local/6th Ave trains are not de-interlined, but the other main trunk lines of the B division will be de-interlined. 8th Ave express, 8th Ave local, 6th Ave express, Broadway local, and Broadway express would all be de-intelined under vanshnookenraggen's plan, even if an adjustment is made as outlined above to allow for extended service. Only 22.5 TPH will service the 63rd tunnel, but that is still an improvement over existing service. For the passengers who board at the local stations between QP and Roosevelt, most want to go to Midtown, so 75% of the trains serving their stations do go to Midtown down 6th Ave. But there are probably some who are heading to LIC, especially as that area starts to grow. Some may also want access to 8th Ave trains for access to West Midtown. The train will serve that need as it will provide the connection needed to QP and also a transfer to the 8th Ave services there. Any passengers from the QB local stations heading to Lower Manhattan will best be served by transferring to the Lex express when they first enter Manhattan (many of these plans also recommend improving the transfer connection from 63/Lex to 59/Lex) or by taking trains to W4 and transferring to 8th Ave trains there. One question is whether 179th can turn 15 locals and 18 expresses per hour? I know it can turn more than what it is asked currently, but what is the limit there? How many trains can QBL serve using 179th, JC, and Forest Hills as possible terminals?

I wonder if it is feasible to have the QBL express run to 6th Ave local via 63rd that split into two routes: and . to Culver, via Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction. There would be fewer stations to retrofit as Broadway Junction is closer than Middle Vilage from Myrtle Jct. It would mean sending and to Broad Street and having the train run as a peak direction express to Broadway Junction. No more . The Broadway Brooklyn line could also merit some stop consolidation. Fewer stops, each with longer platforms and better locations. I'd suggest: Williamsburg Plaza, Union Ave , Flushing, Myrtle, Koscuiscko, Gates, Decatur, Broadway Junction for a total of 8 stations.

It seems that the main reason that Vanshnook's plan prefers 6th Ave - 4th Ave and Broadway-Brighton is more operational, than customer preference. By sending the 6th Ave trains to the 4th Ave express, you provide Bay Ridge with access to the Concourse Yard or the yards in Upper Manhattan. If there is an actual customer preference for this configuration, that can only be a plus. For any who favor deinterlining the BMT southern division lines (all the lines that stop or bypass DeKalb), you will necessarily be restricting 4th Ave to EITHER 6th Ave or Broadway expresses (but not both). Similarly you will necessarily be restricting Brighton trains to the other service. Even though there is no easy transfer between the two services, doing this is largely viewed as acceptable because: 1. In Midtown, Broadway line stops and 6th Ave line stops are generally only about an avenue away from each other. If you are on a 6th Ave express, and you are willing to make a cross-platform transfer to a 6th Ave local if needed, every stop from 23rd street to Columbus Circle or Lex/63rd is close to a local or express stop on the Broadway BMT from 23rd street to Lex/60 or Lex/63. The vast majority of passengers are headed to Midtown. 2. There is still the ability to transfer at Herald Square and/or Lex/63rd for trips going beyond Midtown to Upper West Side, Upper East Side, or Queens 3. Transferring will be easier than is the case now because there will be more trains running 4. For anyone old enough to remember the period from 1990-2004 (I think??) when the tracks on the Manhattan Bridge were under construction, trains were restricted to only using one side of the bridge. For a long time, Brighton and West End passengers only had access to the 6th Ave express and Bay Ridge and Sea Beach passengers were forced onto the Montague tunnel. Then, Brighton and West End passengers only had access to the Broadway express and Bay Ridge and Sea Beach passengers were forced onto the Montague tunnel. The experience illustrates that while there may have been grumbling, Brighton and West End passengers were able to manage having access to only one side of the bridge during those years. It was a real shame that MTA did not implement deinterlining in southern Brooklyn in 2004 once both sides of the bridge became usable once again. Brighton passengers will just continue on the Broadway express, as they have been previously doing for the previous three years. West End passengers will get their service to 6th Ave restored to what it was in the 1990's. Sea Beach customers will get new express service to 6th Ave after being relegated to the local for 15 years. Bay Ridge maintains their local service to Montague as always. It was politically more feasible to have done that service change then while the memory of those commuting patterns was still fresh. If that were the pattern, it would be easier to make Vanshnook's proposal to connect Bay Ridge to 6th Ave express and West End to Broadway local to ensure that Astoria and Bay Ridge trains each have access to a yard without the need of sending Bay Ridge trains to Queens Blvd or sending Astoria trains to the Broadway express.

I had another idea regarding the Fulton line - Lefferts shuttle. Similar to Vanshnook's idea with regard to in Harlem, Lefferts can be connected to Rockaway Blvd via shuttle. If that were done, could still terminate at Euclid and could serve the Rockaways. Obviosuly, some construction at the Rockaway Blvd station will be needed to allow for this to happen, but if the statoin were reconstructed as an island platform, with middle track trains going to Lefferts, this can be done.

There certainly is a lot that he is proposing. First, the nomenclature issues are really a minor thing. I don't think its a big deal wheher to call an Astoria-Bwy local-West End train the or the or the or what have you. I think the point is that all of the merging delays that currently plague the Broadway line can be gotten rid of with some rerouting and the addition of some switches in Southern Brooklyn. The plan eliminates all merging delays at 36st/4 Av, DeKalb, and whatever nonsense in happening at Herald Square. The express trains stay express and the local trains stay local. Yes, the West End riders will lose their direct express to Manhattan, but a plan like this will allow for more frequent trains along the West End line, meaning less time waiting at the elevated station on a cold winter morning. Plus, enough trains are running to allow for <R> trains that skip some of the trains on the West End. The only thing we ask of the West End riders is an additional cross-platform at 36th to transfer to to continue onto the 6th Ave express. THe issues along Fulton line in Brooklyn/Queens are not trivial. One could replicate current service by having to Lefferts or Far Rock with <E> to Rock Park and being the local that only goes to Euclid. Other than the change of train letters, it would be no change at all to 8th Ave services south of Manhattan's Fulton street. I think the reasoning is that to adequately serve three separate terminals (Lefferts, Far Rock, Rock Park) you need to increase the service and not allow any train to terminate at Euclid. Yes, some delays will occur at Euclid, but you can get more trains to service the ends of the lines here. A construction project could mitigate this, perhaps an el over Conduit Ave to connect Euclid to Howard Beach without interfering with the local tracks to Lefferts. [Vanshnook did propose something similar on his second thread for the express over Jamaica Ave.] But construction is costly, and probably beyond the scope of his main plan which involves rerouting with MINIMAL construction.

wow. Your observations are invaluable, but it is unfortunate that common sense no longer prevails. It would seem that, from the perspective of passenger service, that a Dyre to Utica run, especially if it is a rare run, should be a until 125 St and then a further south. Passengers in Manhattan in Brooklyn would see no difference from a regular train, so why confuse them? There really is no difference between a and in Manhattan, so the Bronx people probably care less what will happen to the train when it reaches Brooklyn. And a simple announcement along the lines of "this train will now run as a Downtown and to Brooklyn terminating at Utica Ave" once at the 125th st station would probably be sufficient for everyone else.

Vanshnookenraggen has tweeted more of his deinterlining plan. For the believers, this plan seems to check all of the boxes to provide a consistent service pattern without train interferences. I like it and I think a lot of the ideas have merit.

I think the nomenclature of whether to call a or a is secondary to the issue of routing trains in such a way as to not tangle up the system. It seems that under the vanschnookenraggen plan*, and are identical except that one is local and one is express along the Concourse and one goes to Bay Ridge and the other goes to Sea Beach in Brooklyn. I think the reason why goes to Bay Ridge, is because is the part time line and it is easier to make a Bay Ridge night shuttle than a Sea Beach night shuttle. But there is no reason why you couldn't run the trains the other way around and have the be the full time line and be the part time line. Regardless, the important take away from van's plan is the overall system benefit of having three separate routings through DeKalb that do not interfere with each other: BD 6th Ave express - Bridge N tracks - 4 Ave express - To Sea Beach or Bay Ridge NQ Bwy express - Bridge S tracks - Brighton tracks - express to Brighton, local to CI RW Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - To West End line (with some trains likely short-turning either at Whitehall or Bay Parkway) * He only made public what he will do in Brooklyn - there is still the possibility that he may change the routings along the CPW line and have A and B to Washington Heights with C and D to Grand Concourse. What he plans to do with all of the above lines north of Herald Square is still up in the air until he releases those plans.

With regard to the LIE line, I echo the statements above. Add a station for 108th. No need for a station at College Point. And extend this line as far as you can into Alley Pond Park to provide park and ride facilities and an alternative to the Port Washington line.

The DC Metro does something similar for their employees who died in the line of duty. The memorial is at Metro Center, the central transfer station of the system, but in a relatively quiet part of the station, to allow for quiet thoughts and contemplation. https://dcist.com/story/11/01/31/metro-unveils-employee-memorial-at/ I agree that something equivalent for subway employees should be done at a very prominent Manhattan subway station like Times Square. And I also agree that Goble deserves a unique honor given what he did.

These are very good points. Pocket tracks to allow for short turning trains are necessary to keep trains on schedule, to account for the myriad events that could cause delays throughout the system. There is a need for frequent service through the core at peak times to meet the demand, reduce congestion and waiting times. If you schedule 30 TPH through the core that is a train every 2 minutes which seems to be the maximum throughput for typical stretches of track. But scheduling that many trains does not leave room for error, so you have to provide the short turns so that as much service to the core can be provided, even when accounting for the delays.

I do like the idea of using the Atlantic branch for a subway. Direct Brooklyn to Jamaica service is a big plus. If there is funding for a new East River tunnel, then it seems like the best option would be a connection. Lower Manhattan - Downtown Brooklyn - East New York - Jamaica as an express subway with few stops in between (just places where there would be transfers to other subway lines). If no new East River tunnel is built, but small landside connecting tunnels are allowed, then I envision something along the following: and feed the Montague tunnel, with continuing to Bay Ridge, but taking over the Fulton local tracks. [Most who envision this connection do it by way of the Transit Museum and using a tunnel along Clinton St.] A Spring Street tunnel to connect 8th Ave local trains to the Williamsburg Bridge. This means the M will run on 8th Ave local instead of 6th Ave, allowing for all of the 6th Ave trains to use the Rutgers street tunnel. This would allow the trains to continue to the Culver line and the trains (which will take the place of M along 6th Ave) becoming the Fulton express. [Extrapolating the above further, means and will enter Queens along the 63rd street tunnel and M and along the 53rd street tunnel. Whether this is further deinterlined along Queens Blvd can be decided independently, but my preference would have M and E as the QBL locals and F and V as the QBL expresses.] As teh Fulton line would now be served by and , and will be available for the Atlantic Express. 8th Ave express, through the Cranberry tunnel and then a new tunnel in Brooklyn. The tunnel will be along Adams-Boreum-Atlantic to connect the High Street station with Atlantic/Flatubush and possibly a new station in between to service Downtown Brooklyn. to service Atlantic/Flatbush - either Franklin or Nostrand (there is already a station at Nostrand, but Franklin allows a connection to ) - ENY station (with connection to ) - Woodhaven (to connect with some future Rockaway Park service) - and then Jamaica. Alternatively, the Atlantic line can branch with half the trains ending in Jamaica and the other half servicing and supplementing the Rockaways via Howard Beach.

The K train is not really necessary. Let all of the increased runs be M trains instead. Decreased R trains on QBL will mean room for more M trains on QBL to maintain current service levels. In no way am I suggesting a cut to 4th Ave service. SOme of the additional W trains could be extended there. THe goal is to have N service PW and utilize the unused capacity on 63rd street to avoid constructin a new East River Tunnel and to have N stay on the Broadway express tracks. But doing that would mean the need to provide additional local W service to Astoria. Could this be done by keeping levels the same? Maybe yes. So let's propose something simpler with fewer changes. PW-63rd-Bwy Express, no longer serving Astoria. Increased service to meet Astoria's demand. The additional trains (above the capcaty of the City Hall curves) to terminate at City Hall.

What type of costs are involved with converting the PW line to be compatible with IND/BMT lines? Currently, we have some unused capacity on the 63rd street tunnel, but using that would require a new allocation of services on the Manhattan trunk lines. While it would require more intermixing than I'm generally comfortable with, you can have the run as a Broadway express and then join the across the 63rd street line. continues as QBL express and will service the PW line. 2nd Ave/96th - Broadway express (15 TPH) PW line - 63rd tunnel - Broadway express (15 TPH) QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (7 TPH) Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (14 TPH) QBL express - 53rd tunnel - 8th Ave (15 TPH) QBL express - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local (15 TPH) QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Metropolitan (7 TPH) K QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Broadway Juntion (7 TPH) will run all-stops east of Broadway Juntion, but rush hour express between Broadway Junction and the bridge, terminating at Broad Street. To bring the off Astoria, we need to increase service to Astoria, thereby decreasing service but providing other service to maintain service levels along the QBL local. I propose a K train which is really a variant of the heading to Broadway Junction instead of Metropolitan Ave.