Amiri the subway guy

On 7/2/2023 at 5:08 PM, TMC said:

I don’t get why 3rd Avenue is proposed so much, there’s a parallel commuter rail corridor that’s ripe for improvement, and 3rd Ave itself has demand levels in line with a tramway, not a subway line, judging by the Bx15’s ridership. It certainly shouldn’t be a branch off of WPR, causing worse interlining under your configuration. 

Because metro north only stops one stop in midtown  

10 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

The  can order an extra 80 subway cars strictly for the  since the  will be more frequent, CBTC & all. 

So I assume extra R211s for 2nd Avenue lines then. CBTC Could allow for 18 TPH, so Just 8   TPH during rush hours via 3rd avenue should be enough since you still have the remaining 12 going to throngs neck, meanwhile how many  are you proposing I want at least 14  TPH During Peak Hours

On 5/15/2023 at 8:04 PM, FLX9304 said:

The  at all times, let every 3rd  terminate at Gun Hill during peak hours. All others serve Throggs Neck. Dig? 

Ah every 3rd  you say? So I guessing a very limited amount of Rush Hour   via 3rd avenue, I feel it’s too soon discussing rush hours reroutes. We don’t even know whether which branch may need the extra service. 

5 minutes ago, FLX9304 said:

Throw in Brush Ave for UPS workers coming out of the Throggs Neck Hub. 

Lol how did I forgot to add that station in anyway what route should serve there  or  

On 5/8/2023 at 2:55 PM, FLX9304 said:

Preferably, the  and the . Then have the  extended from 205th to Gun Hill Rd to create a 4 line transfer between the  and the . For a Throggs Neck, what stations are you proposing to connect from 161st to said terminal? 

Late reply but here’s the stations 

Throngs Neck Tremont Avenue 
Castle Hill Avenue 

White Plains Road 

Soundview Avenue 

Boynton Avenue 

Hunts Point Avenue 

Intervale Avenue

6 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I largely like this idea, and while I think it'd be good to have provisions for express tracks, I think it wouldn't be worth the additional cost, especially given the Northern part of SAS is only 2 tracked and may have an additional branch of 125th St crosstown. Further apart station spacing than the Bronx IRT lines and just being newer could still make them viable alternatives to the . I tend to agree overall though that a large part of the Lexington Avenue overcrowding comes because of how dependent the Bronx is on it's different branches, and as you state this could also help out the  which can get pretty bad.

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is similar to what I would do for a rebuilt Bronx 3rd Avenue EL (or subway) IF such were connected to the SAS.  You have the stops more spread out as I would do it for the most part, including key transfers at 138 (for the ) and 149 (for the /).  

Now you both have very good feedback. 
 

Now I admit maybe some of the stations are a bit too close, 156th street and 143rd street are the two stations that may be unnecessary at they might be both a little too close to stations that would have a higher ridership count. 
 

I initially thought that 3 tracks would be enough but at the same time my logic was that 4 tracks would allow for the highest potential capacity but as you said it might be way too expensive, so a 3 track line maybe for peak way express would be good enough but my main issue with this is that the  or would have to share the gun hill road terminal meaning they would have to share and use the exact same equipment (not saying it’s a problem)   but the main flaw is in that proposal the  or   would have to operate on a pattern to balance out service, therefore I propose creating a IND Throngs Neck Subway. The  would start at Lafayette avenue Tremont Avenue running down Lafayette avenue and 163rd Street it then merges with the  at a 161st street junction. This could fill up another Bronx transit desert. 

18 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

1. It'd be expensive, but cheaper than the official proposal because you wouldn't have to build SAS South of Grand St.

2. It is true that 2nd Avenue is currently kinda the border of the CBD, but recent developments suggests that might be changing, with several very large office blocks recently constructed between 2nd and 3rd Avs in midtown. I also suspect construction of a full SAS would make this area more desirable for larger office blocks. The Broadway trains  would probably be slightly favored over SAS, at least initially, but if the MTA could improve some of the SAS transfers in Midtown from the current proposal, I think it could become an equal. It'd be no more favored than the  would be over the  at the very least.

3. The  can take over the Fulton St local either by making a connection to Montague, or having the  take over Montague and the  go via a new tunnel under East River, connecting to the Court Street station currently being used as the transit museum. The transit museum could move to somewhere like City Hall lower level.

4. Having SAS going to Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge would offer a desirable alternative to the  that skips lower Manhattan. A lot of discussion is based arond  overcrowding on the upper east side, but the  in Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn can get pretty bad too because during the morning rush, tons of people transfer onto the  at such as Atlantic Av and Fulton St to get to the east side of Midtown.

To be clear, I'm def not against having SAS take over Fulton St local; I think it's an equally viable idea with different pros and cons, but the current MTA proposal of going all the way to Hanover Square and then having a very aggressive turn under the East River isn't it. Perhaps it could just turn after the proposed Seaport station under the East River, but you'd have to go underneath several existing subway tunnels.

Let’s move on from Brooklyn and queens for now since it appears we have a common goal, and it’s to make 2nd Avenue line attavive as possible. So let’s focus on, the Bronx. Now People say that SAS is supposed reduce crowding on the , but the  is just as if not even more crowded. I ride the  daily in the Bronx. during the rush hours they get crushloaded to the brim. And then34 Avenue el was a subway that you guess it operated in 3rd avenue Bronx. It closed in 1970s due to the elevated route structure being  obsolete, when the Bronx population was growing in the region the 2000s and 2010s this became a huge problem the Bx15 and Bx41 buses ridership levels shows this. So my proposal is to build a 4 track line serving as the long overdue replacement for the 3rd avenue line. The west side  would be supplemented by the existing Broadway express   would be express during daytime weekdays,  but  run local during Weekends and late nights. The east side  would be supplemented by a proposed 2nd Avenue local the  which would be the daytime weekday only local service for 3rd avenue and 2nd Avenue operating 6:30 AM - 10:00 PM. During all other times when the  isn’t operating use the  . The  would start off at Mosholu Parkway west Gun hill road then running east down to Webster Avenue. It would stop at Bainbridge avenue 204th street and Bedford Park Blvd  where at Fordham Plaza it’s meets with the  

the local service only stations would be 

181st street

Claremont Parkway 

168th street

Morrisania 163rd street 

156th street 

143rd street 

and the all local and express service stations are 

Fordham Plaza

Tremont Avenue 

3rd  Avenue 149th street 

3rd Avenue 138th street.

This will more than help out central Bronx. It will also reduce crowding on the . Since Broadway and 7th Avenue run at close proximity to each other the  is the perfect alternate route. Note the  route is Fordham Plaza - Hanover Square.

Is this perfect, too under capacity, or overkill? any feedback suggestions or criticism. 

15 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think it's one of those things where if Phases 3/4 were built as proposed, a Queens service would likely be provided via the connection to the 63rd St tunnel even if it's not directly stated in current plans. It's similar to how Phase 1 brought back the  train which is something a lot of transit fans speculated but was never an official proposal of the project.

A new "H" train could run up SAS via 63rd to Forest Hills as a QBLVD local, possibly replacing the  or  would also somewhat resolve the reverse-branching issue because close to full service could be provided on SAS south of 72nd St. 

As I've said earlier though, I don't think SAS phases 3 and 4 are serious projects under consideration at this time and the  service is a very vague proposals used for political reasons. I suspect that if/when Phase 3 becomes a higher priority, there will be serious discussion around a 2nd service that uses 63rd, and honestly I'd be shocked if the MTA doesn't at least do a study on this service while constructing phase 3.

 

SAS optimized track map

I think Vanshnookenraggen's proposals to optimize SAS while abiding to the same general scope of 2 tracks and not bunch of new branches is smart. Having SAS take over the Northern Manhattan Bridge tracks is also a smart idea, because you wouldn't need to do a deep Chrystie and then go all the way to Hanover Square, and it'd allow the  to become dedicated to something else (in his proposal fully taking over the Broadway El). Also, the  largely mirror the  in Manhattan, so Second Avenue trains over the Manhattan Bridge would provide South Brooklyn riders more direct options. Even if you don't want 6th Avenue Express taking over the Broadway El, they already have a free terminal at 2nd Av, so it'd just be easier than having to go deep under Chrystie Street and constructing a new terminals station for SAS.

The thing is the 2nd Avenue line doesn’t have that much major job options 6th avenue serves in the heart of midtown. The whole project will be very expensive and difficult Fulton street for  is smarter proposal since the  service there is abysmal. South Brooklyn doesn’t even have a overwhelming demand for east side. Just use the  

21 hours ago, Vulturious said:

24/7 is a bit overkill since it's not needed during late nights, maybe weekends to help out the  and , but I doubt it's needed in Brooklyn during those times.

Here’s a suggestion during daytime weekends hours the  would run from Bedford park blvd and then on 6th Avenue it would instead run local with the  and terminate at 2nd Avenue. If the weekend ridership isn’t high enough of grand concourse to warrant the extra service. The  will only run to 145th Street. 
 

The idea I’ll go with is 

new weekend 

 Central Park West/ 6th Avenue Local 145th Street - Lower East Side 2nd Avenue 

This would help increase  service which I heard could take 10-20 minutes. We’ll only need 8  TPH. 
 

late nights  no service 

Use

feedback and criticism is welcome 

 Needs to be extended to the Bronx all day during its weekday run
 

So I personally find it pretty stupid that  only goes all the way to grand concourse during rush hours and midday evening terminate at 145th street. The alone isn’t enough to handle service. People on the grand concourse line have to wait at least 10 minutes for another to arrive. Having the extended to Bedford Park Blvd during middays and evenings would double up service in the Bronx as the headways would be reduced to 5 minutes encouraging more ridership at Grand Concourse. Seriously why doesn’t the MTA consider extending the to Bedford Park Blvd to help out the   

I created a new R262 forum 

Welcome to the R262s forum what your predictions for the R262s assignments what factory do you want them to build want propulsion sound you want them to have 

Hello there I came up with two scenarios of the order happening I say split it into two order to better manage resources R262s R262As the 42nd Street will definitely get them 

Option 1

The would receive the R262s and be fully R262s R262As and the    would mostly get the R262s but still keep some R142s. The will definitely get these cars in this scenario. The MTA would want the newest train fleet operating on the Lexington Avenue line for the CBTC project it’s very likely that the entire R142/A fleet from the and at least 50%-60% of the R142 fleet from the  will be reassigned to the       

The R142s and R142As on the would be sent to the  

The R142s on the would be sent to the  

are fully R262s. The  are mostly R262s but some R142s would remain there to save money.   

I mean the R262s are replacing the R62/As right. But again the newest doesn’t always necessarily directly replace the oldest train fleet. 

And the is the most heavily used train route in the Bronx so again needs the extra capacity that larger doors and open gangway offers.   

Option 2

The ridership level case so in this case I believe makes more sense is that the IRT express routes get the R262s they are very heavily used and crowded and are in dire need of extra capacity so the MTA would definitely want to have the newest and hopefully most reliable subway car fleet operating there. The   would get the R262s all of the displaced R142s and R142As would be reassigned to the IRT mainline Locals the   and  

The would be fully R262s   

The would be a mixure of R262s and R262As 

The would be mostly R262As but occasional R142s 

The R142s and R142As on the would be sent to the  

The R142s on the . would be sent to the    .    

As a bonus the R142As finally get to return to the very subway route they first began operating passenger service on. In either case the is extremely unlikely to receive the R262s as the R188s are in amazing shape. 

The train factories I feel like should build it is Alstom Kawasaki and potentially Siemens

Alstom could built the main  order of 864 train which go to the and half of cars and Kawasaki builds the extra order of 500 R262As cars for and other half of     

Propulsion system I would like to see is Alstom Optonix IGBT–VVVF Siemens 2-level IGBT–VVVF 4 × Siemens 1TB2013-2GA02 230 kW (310 hp) 3-phase AC induction motor and/or Toshiba SEA-430 IGBT-VVVF

5 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The NQW are not getting any r211's due to 8th and 6th Avenue CBTC. The NQW will get all r68's and they may get r160's once all option orders are delivered and in service.

The NQW will not be fully NTT's until the r68's are retired. So people in Astoria will need to take a chill pill, and stop acting like spoiled brats.

SI will get the r211S's. There's no question about it.

They will be a surplus of R160s the Q often gets rerouted to 6th Avenue so they should be fully R160. The N/W can be 85% R160 but some rare R68/As during rush hours the Rockway shuttle should just gets R68s. The remaining amount could just be spares until further notice 

8 minutes ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

The R68/A’s are not going to be retired soon, as they still have about 10 years of useful life left, and are more reliable than the R46. It has also been discussed that even with all the options, the R211’s will not be enough to replace the R68/A’s.

PS 940 R211s replace 752 R46s and 672 R211s replace 625 R68/As

Just now, texassubwayfan555 said:

The R68/A’s are not going to be retired soon, as they still have about 10 years of useful life left, and are more reliable than the R46. It has also been discussed that even with all the options, the R211’s will not be enough to replace the R68/A’s.

Well I meant would it be worth keeping that many subway cars R68s 625 + R160s 1662 + R211s 1612 will their even be enough room for that many cars further more CBTC is limiting where SMEEs could go by 2027 the MTA wants all NTT

Here’s what I believe should happen. The main order will go on the  the R179 8 cars sets will go to the   But the R179 19 car will stay with the  the  will be fully R211 all  R46s will be scrapped. The  options order will than go the  and sending the R179s to the   After that the other option order will be for the  displacing the R160s to the  all remaining R46s and 80%-90% of all R68s and R68As will be scrapped. The R211 open gangway will be sent to the  first. The   gets R160s. The little small amounts of R68s R68As  will be kept for emergency spares in the event of R211s breakdown but when the R211s are proofed to be realible R68s R68As will be scrapped. Any thoughts 

Will they be enough room the R68s

On 8/5/2022 at 5:00 AM, ABOGbrooklyn said:

Why do so many people like having the go to the Bronx? The is already a long line and is local in Brooklyn. This seems unrealistic and the Bronx already has a Coney Island Route in the . should go crosstown 125th Street and the should go to the Bronx via 3rd Avenue

Allow me to describe the reasoning for the choices and how people would benefit from it. 

Now usually it’s the T via Bronx and Q via Harlem y’all used to but the reasoning for it is that currently they is 50 trains during rush hours heading to east midtown the 4/5/6 trains vs 25/30 trains heading to west midtown the 2/D. The 1 is further west away from the rest of the Bronx line and only three stations so technically we could exclude it in this scenario. The B is a rush hour only extension and runs on the same route as the D so it doesn’t really count as it’s own Individual line. Add the Q train would balance the ridership access out. And Broadway is a much more attractive line to be extended to the Bronx since it stops at a bunch of major transfer points in midtown ETC (Times Square Herald Square Union Square). The T the most you get is Grand Central  The main problem with sending the T train to Bronx I see is that it would leave the 2 as the only direct west side route in south bronx. There many places to go to transfer to east at 149th street via 5, 138th street via 6. Or ride all the way in Harlem for T

And sending the T to 125th street crosstown would give the people on Harlem easier access to the east side of Manhattan reducing crowding on the 7/L trains. 

And people are saying that the Q train might be too long while I agree with this at first. Realistic that argument is moot cause I believe we overestimated the length cause let’s be honest the Q train won’t be anywhere near as long as the A or F trains. It would be around the same length as the B train. 

My estimate on the Q train length. 

Longer than the N train, Shorter than the D train.

Here’s my plan for 2nd Avenue service. 
 

 2nd Avenue local Utica Avenue Local Broadway 125th street Manhattan - Kings Highway Brooklyn The  t would first run down st mark Avenue or Bergen street than run down  all the way to Utica Avenue kings highway this gives Harlem easier access to east side and allow Utica Avenue to have subway service 

 2nd Avenue local Northern Blvd Express 4th Avenue local. Utopia Pway Queens - Bay Ridge 95th street Brooklyn  The  starts far north of queens than would run down the line  At Parson Blvd the  would than run express on a 4 track line and than a new tunnel at 57th street connecting the rest of 2nd Ave and Next in Brooklyn In runs down Adam steeet and connects  to the  at jay street. The  would great help out a lot the northern Blvd would reduce crowding on the  and the 4th Avenue while might not really be impactful might give another alternative to the east side instead of  

 2nd Avenue express Rockway beach branch local 

Rockway Beach 116th street Queens - Hanover Square Manhattan  

You guess it the  starts at Rockway beach than runs with the  until Rockway blvd than the  

Would run down the Rockway beach branch and then it would head down to Manhattan and connec to the express tracks running down to Hanover square

Other routes

 extended to Bronx Fordham Plaza 3rd Avenue local

 extends to parsons Blvd queens Northern Blvd local

 extended to Euclid Avenue Brooklyn 

 Reroutes to express track and extends to Lefferts Blvd 

 diverted to far Rockway 

 extended to Brooklyn Williamburg via Wilson Avenue 

new 5th avenues routes

 145th street Manhattan  - Coney Island Brooklyn 

5th Avenue express Utica Avenue express 

retooled

Parsons Blvd queens - Washington square Manhattan 

northern Blvd local 5th Avenue local

Note replaces it

On 7/19/2022 at 12:45 PM, Reptile said:

Here's my very long-term proposal for the SAS

125th St/Bway to Merrick Blvd. Starts as a 125th St crosstown, then 2nd Avenue local to Hanover Sq. Runs as Fulton Express to Broadway Junction where it splits off and runs on Atlantic Ave (b/c the Atlantic Branch will become a shuttle when East Side Access opens) to Jamaica Center and then an extension to Merrick Blvd with the .

ALTERNATIVE: The runs local on Fulton Street to Euclid Ave, the runs Fulton express to Merrick Blvd.

Forest Hills 71st Ave to Euclid Ave. Runs local on QBL replacing the to a new 4-track tunnel on 58th St, then 2nd Avenue local to Hanover Square and Fulton Local to Euclid Ave. Does not run late nights.

College Point to Brighton Beach. Operates local on a new Northern Blvd line in Queens to the 58th St tunnel. 2nd Avenue Express to Grand St, then Manhattan Bridge and Brighton Express. Late nights runs College Point-14th St.

Springfield Blvd to Coney Island. Operates on the LIE, swings north to Flushing Main Street, then express on Northern Blvd, only stopping at Main St, Willets Point, Junction Blvd, and Queens Blvd to 58th St tunnel. 2nd Av express in Manhattan to Grand Street, runs over the Manhattan Bridge to the Brighton local.

Other changes:

now runs 145th St/BPB to Metropolitan Ave replacing the

now runs Norwood to Broadway Junction, or to Merrick Blvd replacing the alternatively. This was my original idea but Downtown Brooklyn access is important, and the would become a very long line running through 4 boroughs.

^these two along with may also be deinterlined on CPW.

runs from the Bronx via 3rd Ave to Coney Island. is rerouted to West End, deinterlining DeKalb Ave

Runs from LGA (extention from Astoria) to Bay Ridge. A new yard would be constructed on the LGA extention to avoid the issue that got the removed from Astoria in 1987. would be discontinued

would return, running from Forest Hills to Church Ave via Culver express. Rush hours it would be extended in the peak direction to Kings Highway.

would be changed, a third track would be added on the rest of the Jamaica line. It would be a peak direction service like the but it would keep its name to not confuse people.

I like the idea suggestions I make. Leave Jamaica line as it is cause I don’t think   Useless it’s on separate tracks
Keep southern Brooklyn the same in order not to cause service disruptions and not make this harder then it needs to be but still deinterline 

Build a new Williamburg subway line to connect to the  and  Maybe one to Utica Avenue or Lower montauk  

Reroute the  via 2nd Avenue and the  run to Euclid Avenue or use the to Euclid Avenue instead is a better choice  for the merrick extension

40 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

It is stupid and biased.

Notice how the MTA made a big scandal when they were fixing the L train tunnel. The MTA even added a SBS on 14th street. 🤦

Notice how N/W riders are now kicking and screaming like babies because they don't have the r160's, while A/C riders have been stuck with the oldest fleets in the system for decades. 🤦

And if something happens in the Bronx or Upper Manhattan nobody says anything.

The MTA better stick with its plan of installing CBTC on 6th Avenue because the people in the Bronx and Upper Manhattan pay the same fare as the people in Astoria. Plus it's the most logical thing to do after 8th Avenue CBTC is done.

 

Look at least it’s not like the bitchy ass  riders and Malcom smith with the R32s R40Ms and R46s. Furthermore CBTC on Astoria should be consider. In my suggestion I kept the R68s for failsafe reasons through on 2028 it’s say to have all CBTC trains by then. With the ongoing car shortage I wished the MTA kept some R38s and R32 Phase 2s. The  tunnel cancellation was done to appease whiny impatient Williamburg communters. Now it will have to be fixed again in 5-10 years instead of the 50 year time frame if they just gotten it over with. 
 

1620 R211s should be enough to share on the  

Meanwhile the  gets the R211As 

R211Ts go to   
 

The R68s and R68As will still be kept in storage for failsafe measures

8 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The base order of r211A's will go to the A/C. It's pretty much confirmed.

Since 8th Avenue CBTC covers 59th Street and 6th Avenue is also getting CBTC, the B and D will need NTTs. R68's or other SMEE's cannot run on CBTC lines.

Concourse will most likely get a good chunk of the first option order of r211A's. As for the B, it will all depends on how many r211A's are built in the first option order. Keep in mind that 207 will need some of the first option order of r211A's to displace the 8 car r179's and make the C and G full length.

If the 1st option order consists of purely r211A's, then those trains will go to 207 (C), Concourse (D), CIY (B).

On the other hand, if the 1st option order includes a good number of r211T's, then 207 and Concourse will get the r211A's, while Jamaica gets the r211T's displacing some of it's r160's to the B.

 

The  could all share R160s with each other as there’s 1,290 cars of 5 set R160s

On 6/29/2022 at 11:14 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

Let's cross our fingers that we don't end up with a car shortage like in DC.

A car shortage in the B division will also impact the A division because a lot of riders will jam pack the number lines in order to avoid riding the letter lines, which will cause the number lines to run slower.

I swear if the MTA gets scrap happy with the R68s it will clearly proof that they learned nothing from the mistakes with the R160s R30s R32s and R44s. I too hope we won’t have to deal with YET ANOTHER CAR SHORTAGE. But wouldn’t we than have a surplus of cars if the R68s stay

 Hey everyone made a new forum if y’all wanna talk about older fleet. I’m made a blog about the mistakes with the R160s  Delivery