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.

engineerboy6561

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

116 Excellent

About engineerboy6561

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yeah; I'm assuming we eventually get a four-track SAS in that proposal. I chose to leave the as the locals there because they're already routed on what would have to be the local tracks the way the stations are currently arranged, and I chose to route the up 2 Av as well to free up capacity on QBL; if the 59 St tracks are used only by the then you've deinterlined the 57 St-Queens Plaza section of the BMT which is useful. I set the up as an express that looped through Queens because a four-track Jamaica line that runs all the way out to Jamaica Center could conceivably make the Jamaica line competitive with QBL for lower midtown and downtown travelers, which would take a solid load off the and trains and QBL in general. The Bayside and Bay Plaza expresses are reasonably interchangeable (they're about the same number of stops), but I didn't want to have the Q switch from 2 Av local to 3 Av express because that's going to either require some pretty creative trackwork to make work or you're gonna have the and the 2 Av express crossing past each other at a level crossing (which is gonna back everything up).
  2. I would as well, but slightly differently. Past LGA I'd send the under Flushing Bay to serve College Point, the Mitchell-Linden Apartments and Bayside because most of those areas are populous enough to be able to use a subway, while I'd send the to Bayside as an express alongside the (P) with stops at Mets-Willets Pt, Flushing, 162 St, Francis Lewis Blvd and Bayside/Bell Blvd. That way the could relieve some of the congestion from northeastern Queens and Flushing on the , while the (P) provides local relief along Northern Blvd for the . That combination should take a fairly large load off of Roosevelt the way the Concourse was supposed to take a load off Jerome Av. Definitely; they really should have built the damn thing with reasonable stop spacing and four tracks to begin with instead of placing stops every 15-18 blocks and planning the line as an orphan. If you put express tracks under the existing pair, add an infill stop at 79 St, and build it in a tradition four-track layout down to LES-2 Av then that would do us a lot of good. I'm not sure the teal makes a ton of sense there. The big issue is that you're introducing two new merges on QBL, which is already running at pretty close to capacity on the express end. By running the along 63 St and then along QBL you're probably going to f**k people relying on the because the brief merge is likely to cause delays on the . Furthermore, the southbound would need to be timed to hit the Queensbridge interlocking exactly as an train does so that the doesn't get held up by an merging and the northbound is going to need absolute priority over the , so any error could back up QBL express and 6 Av local services. The variant where the returns and serves Euclid is interesting but isn't going to work on existing trackage; the issue is that the and share one track pair coming into Jay St-MetroTech and so there aren't really open slots on the 8 Av/Fulton tracks there. Furthermore, even if you do get it working any small f**kup is gonna wind up causing conga lines on the . If you want to add service on the Fulton local the thing that would make the most sense would be to extend both the 8 Av and 2 Av local tracks down to Whitehall St, then build a four-track terminal station at Whitehall with two tracks to turn the and two through tracks to Court St. That would free up the 8 Av-Fulton tracks to their full 60tph capacity, and if you structured the track layout at Whitehall St well you'd be able to keep the running cleanly; I put a track map for the station below. The train idea is solid, but is there a reason you want to end it in Harlem? If you run it as an express you can tie 2 Av to Queens or the Bronx with it while still keeping end-to-end time reasonable.
  3. I took a few of the ideas from the last couple pages and combined them with some of my own thoughts to produce this service pattern: : Bay Plaza-Coney Island via Concourse local, CPW/6 Av/ 4 Av express : LaGuardia Airport-Coney Island via Astoria Blvd/2 Av local, Broadway/4 Av express : Norwood-205 St-Coney Island via 3 Av/2Av local, Broadway express, Brighton local : Ditmars Bl-Whitehall St via 31 St/Broadway local : Broad St-Jamaica Center via Jamaica local : LaGuardia Airport-Jamaica Center via Astoria Blvd/2 Av/Jamaica express : Norwood-205 St-Kings Plaza via 3 Av/2Av/Jamaica express, Utica Av local (P): Bayside-Whitehall St via Northern Blvd/2 Av local We could accomplish this by connecting the 2 Av line to the LES-2Av express tracks on the south end and then running the result as a four-track trunk under the East River according to something similar to the Second System plan/ You'd basically run four tracks under the East River, and you'd need to drop the down enough to stay underground and curve north under Houston before diving under the river. I'm not sure whether to suggest four or six tracks for the trunk (four is easier to build, but also limits branching and total flow down to 60tph peak. The trunk would basically replace the existing Jamaica El, with express stops at Marcy Av and Union Av, then a local stop at Flushing Ave before an express stop at Myrtle Av. From Myrtle Av the could branch off and serve the existing line to Metropolitan Av, while one of the 2 Av lines could run under Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av down to Kings Plaza, while the main trunk continued along Broadway/Fulton St/Jamaica Av with express stops at Broadway Junction, Cypress Hills, Woodhaven Blvd, and Sutphin/Archer and an option to extend the line out into southeast Queens? Under this setup the would run basically its current routing at all times, the could operate as the Jamaica local, while the and operate down the corridor as expresses. The would turn off at Myrtle Av to serve Utica, while the would run from Jamaica Center through Manhattan as a 2 Av local service. That would give you room for four services on 2 Av; the running as 2 Av local trains above 63 St, the and running as 2 Av expresses from 125 St to Houston and Jamaica/Bushwick expresses from Houston to Myrtle Av (for the ) or Jamaica Center (for the ). The would be rerouted to serve Astoria-Ditmars under this plan, which would completely deinterline the Broadway express and local service. In the Bronx/northern Queens we could split the trunk into two additional trunks carrying 30tph each; one trunk would split off at 86 St before heading under the water to Astoria Blvd, running to LaGuardia Airport with express stops at 31 St, 82 St, and LGA main terminal, and local stops at 21 St, Steinway St, and Hazen St. The other trunk would run up 3 Av to Fordham Plaza, with the making express stops at 125 St, 149 St/3Av, Tremont Av, Fordham Plaza, and Norwood-205 St; the Q would make all local stops between 86 St and Norwood-205 St. From there, the would terminate and the and would continue under Gun Hill Rd to Bay Plaza. The local service below 63 St would be provided by a new Northern Blvd relief line running from Bayside-Bell Blvd down to Whitehall St via Northern Blvd (from Bayside to 36 Av), 36 Av (from Northern Blvd to the East River), and 2 Av (from the East River to Whitehall St). I mapped all of this out in a Brand New Subway map; the link to see it is here: https://ufile.io/hs2ypzit
  4. If you were to tie the into the at LES-2 Av then you have options; the bigger question is how you integrate things. The runs 6-9 tph and the runs 15tph or so, which would mean that the would be limited to 6-9tph on the south end if you put it on Culver (unless you use the as Culver Express and give the merge priority at the Bergen St interlocking, which would let the run at 15tph). The situation would be better if you ran the down Nassau, as the run approximately 8-10tph, and the also runs 8-12tph. The space for a 15tph is there along the tracks, but the issue with running down 4 Av is going to be terminal capacity; if I had to guess I'd peg the turning capacity at Bay Ridge around 10-12tph (which might not leave room to turn trains), while running the to Church as the Culver local would lead to a terminal that could comfortably turn 30tph.
  5. The larger question then becomes how we tie the Second Ave Subway into the system. It still runs through a huge chunk of Manhattan and needs feeder services to avoid becoming an orphan, so if we avoid tying into there now we're going to have to do it later.
  6. The new schedule shows the I-195 trips branching off the main line at US-9 and Aldrich Rd. My best guess is that these are Lakewood-only buses that take 195 to the GSP and then get on I95 in Woodbridge, since Google Maps tries to route you that way if you drive from US-9/Aldrich to PABT and buses are legally allowed on the Parkway.
  7. Possibly, but it should be significantly less necessary if you use modern rail construction techniques and designs (continuously welded rail, low vibration track, stronger fasteners, and of course wider curves whenever possible).
  8. That could work if you rebuild New Utrecht to an express station and turn trains on the central two tracks, but you're still adding a merge at 59 St that becomes annoying.
  9. I believe the specific issue with that is that an Astoria-Bay Ridge line would have no yard of its own, and so all trains would have to deadhead, either from CI Yard via Sea Beach and then across a currently nonexistent crossover on the 4 Av express tracks to reverse, or via QBL with a reverse move in the 59 St tubes across another currently nonexistent crossover. Extending the to New Utrecht means adding a merge on 4 Av between the and that may actually be a potential source of delays, and if you get rid of it then there may be local TPH issues. It's not a bad idea but we'd need an Astoria Yard to make it work.
  10. The best counterargument I could make is the transfer passage between TSQ and PABT, which is a full avenue block long but still sees a lot of heavy use. Also, most of the transfers are a lot shorter than an avenue block (53rd/Lex is about half an avenue block according to Google Maps, and 14 St/2 Av, Grand Av, and LES/2 Av are all literally right on top of 2 Av. The big issue would be the at 42 St (which would ideally gain a stop between 2 Av and 1 Av to facilitate transfers, and would be a 900' walk otherwise). The other argument I have is that to make 2 Av viable as a new trunk it needs connections to the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn. The Bronx is easy (four-track trunk up 3 Av to Fordham Plz, then up to Gun Hill Rd and swing across to Co-op), and Brooklyn's not bad either (replace the Jamaica el with a four-track line carrying a mix of 2 Av and Nassau St trains), but the best spot to put a Queens connection would be the Astoria Bl/86 St connection. It would make sense to not directly interline an 86 St crosstown with 2 Av trains for operational complexity reasons, but unless you want to run another line via Northern Bl/36 Av (which might not be a bad idea; it would leave all of NW and north central Queens within 1/2 mile on foot of a subway) then 2 Av should connect to Astoria Blvd. The reverse branching thing is somewhat of a concern; I agree that interlining is nonideal because it means merge complexity and opportunities for delays to happen, but you're basically trading one-seat rides for some amount of operational sadness no matter how you do it. I believe that interlining and reverse branching should be kept fairly low, but I also think that unless we build out additional lines on Northern Blvd leaving the 2 Av line disconnected from Astoria Blvd is a mistake. The problem with my approach is there's going to be a merge somewhere unless all 2 Av expresses serve Queens (which is a poor tradeoff for other reasons), and so running the to Astoria Blvd means trading off an merge with some merging sadness on the 2 Av trunk. I'd rather have the merging sadness happen between the and a 2 Av local train that would be continuing on as an Astoria Blvd local than have something like the 53 St merge at 86 St/2 Av.
  11. The elevated on Astoria is fair; as far as 2 Av to Queens having terrible connections is concerned that's at least partially a function of how absolutely hilariously poor the planning for the 2 Av project is. Ideally 2 Av would have connections at 59 St (59/Lex via the Broadway platform), 50 St (connection to 53rd St via platform), 42nd St( connection to via a new station), 14 St (connection to via the eastern end of the 3 Av station), Houston St (connection Lower East Side/2 Av ), and Grand St (connection to ).
  12. That would make a lot of sense; I personally think a relief line connecting Flushing to 2 Av via Astoria Blvd and then continuing out to Bayside via Northern would make more sense because of the ease of patching it into the Manhattan network. If you put an express lower level on 2 Av (or just expand it to four tracks), then you could send 2-4 tracks under the river north of 86 St and send them along Astoria Blvd; depending on what you're doing you could rope the Astoria el into the new line, since Astoria Blvd is 95-100 feet wide over the street you could fit a full size four-track el over the street, and the portion where Astoria Blvd is a service road to the GCP would make that much easier so that you don't have to build the station an extra 15-20' below street level. Basically what I'd propose is two tracks from 86 St/2 Av branch off and swing under Hell Gate, come up between Hoyt Ave S and the Astoria Park running track, and swing over Hoyt Av S, with a stop at 21 St. I'd reconfigure 31 St/Astoria Blvd as a two-level station with the current platform rotated so that it stretches from 32 St/Astoria Bl to 35 St over the center of the GCP and the 2 Av platform above it from 35 St to 31 St. East of the station the 2 Av tracks would come down to the level, and the tracks would merge to form a four-track line ( providing local service, the 2 Av trains providing express service), and then local stops at Steinway St and Hazen St before a two-level express station at 82nd St (four tracks on the lower level, two above); the two upper level tracks would turn north and serve LGA directly with stops at 90 St/GCP and Central Terminal before terminating at Terminal D. The mainline would continue along Astoria Blvd, with local stops at 88 and 94 Sts, an express stop at 31 Av, a local stop at Ditmars Blvd, an express stop at Shea Stadium North, and then a plunge underground before stops at Flushing-Main St (express, connect to ) Parsons Bl (local), 150 St (local), 162 St (express), Utopia Pkwy (local), Francis Lewis Blvd (local), Clearview Expwy (local) and Bell Blvd(express). If you build this, and then add stops on the PW at 108 St (Corona) and Broadway (Elmhurst) then that should help a great deal; you'd basically be flanking the with higher-speed services that run farther faster, and you'd also have one-seat access to both the east and west sides of Manhattan (which should decongest GCT and Times Sq by a reasonable amount).
  13. You're right about Hollis Ct Blvd; I saw the boulevard width on Google Maps and assumed it had some development on it. My bad. Douglaston is probably overkill; you could probably turn trains at Bell Blvd and be fine. I tend to propose pushing builds a little bit too far out rather than right-sizing them to account for potential future demand. As far as the el width and Manhattan extension I'd like to talk a bit more about my thoughts; the issue here is that 40 IRT TPH is not enough to serve as a trunk for most of northern Queens the way the currently does. You could four-track the main Roosevelt Av el, but you run into the issues fitting it that you brought up (that I missed because it looked like the platforms on the el had ~10' of clearance from building walls, and so adding a fourth track would reduce that clearance to ~4' (which is tighter but still theoretically feasible), and even if you four-track all the way to QBP the extra 20TPH has to go somewhere that's not the current track pair under 42nd St, and I figured that the current is deep enough that it would already be under most foundations and so you could expand it to four tracks more cleanly. If not we still need to figure out a place on the western end to turn those trains (unless we want to run locals only to QBP and then have all the trains from midtown run as trains, which isn't a particularly good solution either. So given that you can either double up on the existing track pair, send the new trains through a new tunnel to 59 St, or leave the alone and build something out with four tracks, either along Northern from QP or along Astoria Blvd from the UES. The alternative to expanding or burying the (which to be clear I'm talking about doing when the el needs to come down and/or get renovated in large chunks) would be to build something new (which would add fairly large costs to the system in addition to the work that would already happen, bury the (which makes the most sense, and then when burying it you can make it four tracks to improve capacity), with the core cost being that the el would need to stay up a few extra years during construction to avoid the massive disruption that would come with trying to tie the el to the new subway midway through. I'd personally prefer to quad-track the underground, and then figure out what we'd have to do to have 60-80tph worth of capacity feeding into the new underground Flushing Line; I figured replacing the el with a four-tracked structure would do the thing for less money and be more palatable. If you don't mind my asking, @bobtehpanda, what are your thoughts about what should be done?
  14. I figured there would be room because the el runs with four tracks from 104 St to Willets, so I figured there would be room most of the way down, with maybe a couple of buildings coming down at station sites between 90 St and Woodside if things turned out to be a bit too tight. South of there everything's on a median until you get to QBP, which you'd need to reconstruct but could probably build with express tracks on a third, even higher level, and so four tracks wouldn't be that hard. South of QBP you'd run two stacked els, with the express tracks on the top and a stop at Court Sq; you'd need to get rid of the two layup tracks next to the existing portal so you could drop the express tracks in next to the local tracks before expanding the line to four tracks out through Manhattan. Since the is already the deepest layer of the subway system it would be fairly feasible to just build a second two-track line alongside it just to the north; shift the southbound local track over, and the current platforms at GCT, 5 Av, and Times Sq become the eastbound platforms and new westbound platforms are built to the north. If this proves to be unfeasible, then instead of widening the el to four tracks rebuild the portion north of 46 St as a stacked 2+2 el with the express tracks up top and express stops at 61 St, 74 St, Junction Blvd, and Willets Pt before Flushing. East of Flushing just extend the whole thing out to Douglaston Pkwy, with new stops at Parsons Bl (local), 150 St (local), 162 St (express), Utopia Pkwy (local), Francis Lewis Blvd (local), Clearview Expwy (local), Bell Blvd(express), Springfield Blvd (local), Douglaston Pkwy (local), and Little Neck Pkwy (express). If a full 60tph out past 162nd St seems a bit excessive, then it might make sense to send one of the express trains down to Jamaica Av, with stops at Utopia Pkwy/Hollis Ct Blvd, Hollis Ct Blvd/50 Av, Hollis Ct Blvd/Francis Lewis Blvd, Francis Lewis Blvd/73 Av, Francis Lewis Blvd/Union Turnpike, Francis Lewis Blvd/Hillside Av, and Francis Lewis Blvd/Jamaica Av.
  15. This makes sense; honestly, when the El starts to need renovation on the we should really just replace it with a four-track subway out to at least Bell Blvd

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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