Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

1 Follower

About engineerboy6561

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That would be an interesting idea; the alternative would be to slap a flying junction on the express tracks where the LIRR tracks cross Queens Blvd, then bring the up on the outer two tracks between 51 Av and 57 Av (then raise the up once you get past the spot where the Rockaway branch breaks off).
  2. I mean, that's possible, but the question comes down to what tracks you want to use where. The LIRR mainline is currently six tracks to Woodside, two of which are dedicated to PW branch service. You could disconnect those two from the PW branch and extend them down QBL as subway tracks if you so chose; I'm just not sure that's a good idea. I'd also rather see a four-track Jamaica corridor and additional corridor service down Northern Blvd and/or Astoria Blvd than jump straight to six-tracking QBL at the moment; it's not a bad idea to create a QBL bypass but I don't really want to see all those eggs in the and 's basket. Yeah; I'm more a fan of the 2nd ->3rd->2nd alignment that came up in this thread a while back (2 Av 125 to 72, 3 Av 66 to 42, 3 Av 34 to Houston) because that enables easy transfers with the at GCT, the at 53 St, and the at 59/63 Sts while still hitting the hospitals and the points of interest on the LES.
  3. Setting up the PW line that way with additional stops at Junction Blvd and Broadway basically creates a bidirectional express and an extension for Flushing, with your only costs being the two new stations plus the passage from Elmhurst Av to the new stop at Broadway and a fleet of Americanized Class 345s; that's the fairly low-cost option. The higher-cost option is to branch the PW line tracks off from the LIRR just before Sunnyside and tie them to the 63 St tunnel; route the through the new tunnel, and use existing rolling stock on the line to provide service to NE Queens while freeing 2 Av up to operate as a separate trunk line. You'd wind up adding about 1.5ish miles of track, an infill stop with a connection to the Astoria line at 31 St/39 Av, and two more tubes to 63 St, but that would also work (while freeing up the and to run up to 30 tph combined by eliminating the bottleneck on the 59 St tunnels).
  4. If you wanted to do that you'd need a third track at least to enable express trains to pass locals; Norristown HSL in Philly makes that work but they only have room to run 6-8 tph or so that way max. Their schedule shows the express leaving five minutes before the local and arriving nine minutes after the previous one, and 6tph total service (with an effective headway of 15-20 minutes on either end because of the spacing between trains required to run the service that way). You could possibly push the headways a bit tighter, but you couldn't really have smaller gaps between the locals than what PW already has (which is 20-25 minutes between locals and 20-25 minutes between expresses). I really think you're better off either converting the entire PW branch to all-stops subway operation and add infill stations at Queens Blvd and Junction Blvd, or just biting the bullet and building a separate subway corridor.
  5. If you think you can pull it off go for it; the question is whether you have the resources and the credentials to do that. I worked on a City Council campaign up in Cambridge and it was a three-ring circus (and somewhat of a clusterf**k); it's important work and people need to do it but it's damn difficult.
  6. Honestly, for serving College Point I'd be tempted to run either a Fordham-Flushing-Jamaica crosstown line or a Co-Op City-Flushing-Kew Gardens-Far Rockaway crosstown with a connection to QBL at Forest Hills. Considering how full the Q44 runs, trainstituting it with extensions to Fordham and down Merrick Blvd would likely be a viable route in its own right, the extension to Fordham should increase ridership further, and an extension down Merrick Blvd should take a pretty big load off the Q4/5/84/85. Alternately, crossing QBL at Forest Hills and then taking over the Rockaway Beach Branch would do something useful with the Rock Park shuttle. I'd love to hear feedback: Map with alignments here
  7. You could extend the , but the way Flushing Main St is constructed it would be a massive PITA to do so. You'd have to close Main St Flushing because of the way the mezzanine was built, redo all the wheelchair access things, and there's not enough road capacity to extend all the Flushing buses to Shea for a couple years while you do that. If you build the IND out to Flushing then closing the IRT station to do work isn't so bad.
  8. I think it's worth the investment to have at least one four-track trunk in Northern Queens; I set my proposal up this way because it gives me the track capacity to run 60tph into Flushing should we need it, and I could see running your crosstown as an additional local service on that trunk. Just looking at the relative populaiton densities on a census map of NYC, it would probably make more sense to put a four-track trunk on Northern and then a two- or three-track local line along Astoria Blvd (and Northern Blvd also lets you take the and both off Broadway local, letting you bump the to 15-20tph), while still tying into the larger system. I tend not to be a fan of having standalone corridors as opposed to integrating things into a wider system.
  9. Usually for that specific plan I bring a four-track trunk up to Norwood/205 St, turn the local trains there, and then run a three-track line carrying the and the 2 Av express along Gun Hill to Bay Plaza, with connections for the at White Plains Rd and the at Seymour Av, with the goal of providing people in the East Bronx east- and west-side access. By running only the expresses out that far we dramatically cut access times to East and West midtown (the is an hour from Wakefield to Times Sq on the schedule, and the is 45 minutes from Dyre to Grand Central; the is 35 minutes from Norwood to 34 St, and an extension to Bay Plaza would likely add 9-12 mins on to that, and I figure a 2 Av express would be about even with the or even a bit faster). All told that would do Williamsbridge to Midtown in 35-38 minutes via the IND rather than 52ish minutes via IRT, and the 2 Av setup would essentially pull a huge chunk of the people heading from the western half of the Bronx to the hospitals on the east side. I'm figuring from Williamsbridge to Tisch or Beth Israel would be eleven stops (Gun Hill Rd/WPR, Norwood, Fordham, Tremont, 163, 149, 125, 86, 59, 42, 14) on 2 Av as opposed to fourteen on the IRT, and faster between the stops because there wouldn't be the constant backups due to overcrowding that you'd see on the Lex. Here's the last completed draft of my proposal: 45 new IND tph into the Bronx (30 via 3 Av, 15 via Boston Rd/Amtrak trunk, 30 crosstown tph on Gun Hill), 60tph on 2 Av, 60tph into Williamsburg, 30tph to Jamaica Center and SE Queens, 45tph along Northern Blvd west of Junction Bl, 30tph from Junction Bl to Bell Blvd.
  10. Same; in that specific case I went with Norwood, Fordham, Tremont, 161 and 149 because of the high volume of bus connections available at each of those spots, and then 138 St simply to keep a full transfer from the .
  11. That's interesting; I tend to be more fond of placing local stops 1500-1700 feet apart, and then having express stops every 3500-7000 feet. For instance, my proposal for the 3 Av line has stops at Norwood/205 St, Bedford Park Bl, Fordham Plaza, 183 St, 180 St, Tremont Av, 174 St, 169 St, 163 St, 156 St, 149 St, 143 St, and 138 St, with Norwood, Fordham Plaza, Tremont Av, 163 St, 149 St, and 138 St serving as express stops.
  12. Expanding the to Bayside isn't the best idea because of how much of a legendary PITA rebuilding the eastern end of the station would be. I'd prefer to see B-division subway service along Northern and Astoria Blvds, and then Flushing Main St becomes a multi-corridor subway hub like Coney Island. The B Div trains could run out to Bell Blvd (with provisions for extension out to Great Neck if NE Queens winds up densifying heavily), and express service should be provided along at least one of those corridors, maybe both). I'd say it would make sense to run the 50 St crosstown via Northern with at least three tracks, and SAS trains via Astoria Blvd with four tracks, and then expand the Flushing/Main St station to include a plaza under Main St between Roosevelt and Northern; local trains would turn at Flushing Main St and then express trains would continue out to Bell Blvd. Also, at that point, if we decide that we really want to do something to extend the east we'd have 60-75 BMT tph of capacity into Flushing, and so turning the at Shea for a year or two during construction would be feasible. If we were to try to do that without the BMT capacity as a relief it would be an absolute disaster.
  13. Running Northern off SAS is my preferred alternative, mostly because it fills a serious gap in Northeastern Queens service and sets the Second Avenue corridor up with multiple feeders. You could extend SAS north along 3 Av in the Bronx and east along Northern at least to Flushing (though I'd recommend continuing it out to Bell Blvd to take a load off the Q12/Q13 and spur development along Northern Blvd); if you wanted to extend the along that way I'd like the Northern Blvd segment to be four tracks and the used to provide local service as far as Flushing with services into Manhattan providing supplementary local and express service (especially to reduce travel time for people coming from beyond Flushing). My old 2 Av system map that covers a plan similar to this is at https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is&usp=sharing , and there would be room for the along Northern Blvd in that plan. You'd need to add a flying junction off the current tracks north of Court Sq, drop below the four-track trunk leading into Queens Plaza, and run under Crescent St before curving east onto 36 Av; you could add a G station under QBP to create a QP/QBP transfer complex. If you wanted to run 50 St crosstown as well you could turn off under 47 Av in Queens and connect the 50 St crosstown there. That plan would leave room for 30tph SAS to Flushing/Bayside, 15tph , and 15tph 50 St to Flushing/Bayside. In that scenario the easiest (read: least interlining) way to do it would be to run the SAS trains express and the /50 St trains local. If you figure you'd need more trains to 50 St then you could keep the topped out around 10tph and run 20tph through 50 St. As far as pulling the off QBL there wouldn't be room if you wanted the and the 50 St crosstown running to Flushing and you tied Northern to SAS. In that case I'd probably recommend tying SAS to a new corridor along Astoria Blvd and then leaving the and the 50 St crosstown to split a four-track line, figuring out local and express in that case would be interesting. You could run the 50 St trains and the local and run the express (figuring that the has the longest run of the three lines and would benefit the most from the runtime reduction, or you could run the 50 St tracks separate from the tracks until the start of the four-track portion of the corridor and run a 50/50 local/express split for crosstown trains; that would get you 25-30tph on 50 St and leave 15tph each for the and .
  14. I could try to throw something together in Illustrator tonight and see where we get; I'm inclined to do that to some of my own plans as well
  15. That's more than fair; the only other concern I have would be underpinning all the regional rail infrastructure along 34 St, but that might be doable since most of that is concentrated between 31 and 33 Sts. I'd be down for doing this, and then moving the 2 Av Second System Queens lines back to Astoria Bl/86 St so that basically all of northern Queens west of Flushing has easy subway access.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.