T to Dyre Avenue

Quote

I’ll assume it’s the express tunnel where the  runs between 65th street and 36th street 

48 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

The express tunnel for the  that runs under Northern Blvd while the  (and late night  run under Broadway and Steinway St)

But I'm not talking about that tunnel. I know exactly which tunnel is used by the . I was talking about the 63rd Street Tunnel under the East River that connects Queens and Manhattan. I was specifically addressing an earlier post by @ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ about how QB local riders cannot directly get to the 63rd St Tunnel without backtracking to Roosevelt Ave and transferring to the . I'm not really sure where all this confusion over tunnels is coming from.

22 minutes ago, nightmare402 said:

what tunnel between 36 and 65 st?

The 63rd St Tunnel.

On 6/8/2023 at 12:11 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

There's honestly no perfect solution. Ignore the 60th St tunnel connection for now:

If you have locals via 63rd and expresses via 53rd, then that would mean local riders between 36th St and 65th St would not be able to access 53rd or the east side of Manhattan without going backwards to Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av. Also the expresses would likely be way too heavily favored and overcrowded.

If you have expresses go via 63rd and locals via 53rd, you have the opposite problem. Local riders wouldn't be able to access 63rd and express riders who want to go via 53rd would have to transfer to the local at Jackson Heights Roosevelt Av which would add quite a bit of time to their commutes.

Finally, you can have the combo with some combination of expresses and locals via either tunnel which gives everyone options, but causes more interlining reducing tph.

Deinterlining QBLVD isn't just a case of making riders do an extra cross-platform transfer, cause in some cases that transfer can't be made without going backwards or dealing with one of those long and inconvenient corridors in midtown. You're in the end adding significant time to a ton of people's commutes even if you're running more tph.

The ridership imbalance between the  and an SAS  service can't be understated for an already crowded corridor. 6th Av goes right through the heart of midtown Manhattan and has a ton of connections to other lines, whereas SAS runs on the border of midtown and no matter what will have worse connectivity. It'd be similar to how pre-2010, the  did far more work along West End than the Brown . The difference here is since QBLVD express needs as much capacity as it can get during rush hours, balancing the loads between the services you do provide is key. The current  and  for instance balance the load relatively well with a slight favoritism towards the , but given the current circumstances it's really the best possible service pattern imo.

I agree with the first two paragraphs. The rest I don't and I'll tell you why.

For one thing, local riders between 36th and 65th already can't directly access the 63rd St corridor without riding backwards to Roosevelt because neither the  nor  use that tunnel except in emergency reroutes (which aren't that much of a rare occurrence, thanks in some part to the current convoluted QBL service pattern). Now, if the  were rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel (as it was rumored the MTA was actually considering it back in 2019), then that wouldn't be an issue. 

Hillside express riders who want 53rd already have to transfer from the  to the  (they didn't have to prior to December 2001).

As for a potential Queens-SAS service running express vs the , how would the 2nd Ave be on the "border" of Midtown any more so than 8th Ave? Large commercial real estate drops off significantly west of 8th Ave. 

Having a Queens-SAS service also mitigates the need for long and costly passageways that everyone speculates the  will have in order to connect to any line that intersects it, other than the  at 2nd Ave/Houston St and the  at 14th.

On 6/6/2023 at 9:50 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think having SAS replace the  on QBLVD is generally a bad idea though cause it'd make it more difficult for QBLVD express riders to get to the far East Side, and the  would likely see severe overcrowding by nature of having far more connections than SAS and going through the heart of midtown. If SAS were to run on QBLVD, I'd have it run as a local, but again you wanna be careful cause you don't want the a mega "" merge that causes delays

If QB express riders from Jamaica specifically want the 8th Ave corridor, then yes, the  should stay as is. Otherwise, I really don’t see why the Queens-SAS service shouldn’t be express in Queens. Making it local while running it alongside the  in the 63rd St would create more merging in an area (36th St in LIC) that’s already got more than enough merge-related delays. And without building super-express tracks like in the 1968 MTA Program for Action, there is really not enough room for a useful fifth service on QBL.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- there should be a Queens-SAS service south of 63rd St in addition to the . Either on its own line in Queens or via QBL, although the QBL option would give non-  SAS trains a yard without having to deadhead there. 

17 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

 

Astoria CBTC as well as Lexington CBTC has been pushed back in favor of 6th ave and Crosstown CBTC due to those 2 lines having the oldest signals in the system. This is why the R211s will be on 90% of the IND lines, Basically all IND lines have to have tech trains within the next 5-6 years.

It makes sense to push back Astoria CBTC without also upgrading the Broadway Line in Manhattan to CBTC. What other lines can Astoria be connected to without doing a lot of extra work?

18 hours ago, randomnewyorker23 said:

I’ve been having this thought for days, if the double letter services remained into the 80s to become single lettered services, what letters would they become

 

routes like  and  would be obvious but what about routes that wouldn’t have been easy, like the  which was eliminated back in 1976, it obviously couldn’t have became  for obvious reasons.

The  would have likely been renamed with a completely different letter like , same as how the  became the  in mid-1985. I suppose they could have just merged the operations of the  and  into a single  service right then rather than continuing to have the separate  and  services. Those two services eventually were merged in late 1988 into what has become the current  train.  

On 5/31/2023 at 9:04 PM, Wallyhorse said:

And this is why I came up with my plan of moving the to Nassau and becoming the  as quoted below:

As for the Broadway Line, with the  on Nassau:

The  becomes a 19/7 line from Whitehall to 71st-Continental (with during rush hours some trains ending southbound and beginning northbound on the tunnel level of Canal Street.

The  and running as they do now, however, there would be additional service as needed that would end southbound and begin northbound at 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway on the  and run via the tunnel as a 4th Avenue and Broadway local.  This could be assigned a different letter to avoid confusion from those who would not get what " via tunnel" and " via bridge" meant.

This to me solves the issue with the  by having THAT on Nassau since the only merger would mostly be with a small number of trains running via the tunnel (to supplement the main trains) and during peak hours a handful of  /  trains that end and begin at Broad Street.  

 

 

The  are fine terminating at Broad,   or no . Run the  to Bay Ridge to supplement the . There’s no need for additional  service via the Tunnel terminating at 9th Avenue or Bay Ridge via the , no matter what letter it has.

On 5/30/2023 at 12:17 AM, Around the Horn said:

Actually I think he would approve of that given the alternative, as long as the remains as frequent as it usually is. The shuttle buses on 4th get universally panned by politicians and residents in the neighborhood alike.

He and three other Bay Ridge pols suggested back in 2019 that Transit split the  like so - 

Wonder if Brannan and Andrew Gounardes would want to have another go at it. Unfortunately Max Rose and Mathylde Frontus are out of office having lost to Republicans, at least one of whom is not quiet about her distaste for mass transit, especially for congestion pricing.

15 hours ago, Q44 SBS said:

I have two questions, were the R32’s design based on the R30? What was it like riding the R30? I never got the chance to ride any subway cars that were around before I was born. Since I was born in ‘95, some subway cars were already retired before my time. However, I do remember riding the Redbirds on the  , and  but I had no idea that B division had their own version of the Redbirds. I did spent the time on nycsubway.org reading They Moved The Millions and found it interesting about every single design of the subway cars (pre R-68). I was honestly quite annoyed that the current NTT fleet all look alike but after reading They Moved The Million, I realized that the transit agency has been doing this for decades. Here’s the way I look at it:

Subway Cars Following The R1 Design

• R4, R6, R7, R9, and R10 with few minor changes to the exterior and interior.
• Smaller version of the R10 designed for the A division called the R12 and R14.
• R15 looks similar to R12 but with a major facelift, having an arch roof design.
• R16 basically a R15 but for the B division.
• R17 basically a R16 but for the A division.
• R21 was just an updated version of the R17.
• R22 similar to the R21 but with few minor changes.
• R26 looks similar to R22.
• R27, a upgraded version of the R16 with few modifications.
• R28 basically an updated R26.
• R29 is just an updated R28 model.
• R30 is identical to the R27.
• R32’s design looks like the R30.
• R38 looks similar to the R32.
• R33 is just a updated model of R29.
• R36 looks similar to R33 but with a few changes.

The R10 was a big departure from the R1/4/6/7/9 cars (aka the “Arnines”). And the R11 was a big departure from the R10, but only 10 of them were ever built.

2 hours ago, zacster said:

If the R211A and R211T are the same car, only with different ends on the internal cars, there's no reason they couldn't be mixed.  Same manufacturer, same internal parts, built simultaneously.  Whether they would actually do that is another story, but really there is no reason they couldn't.

Right. They might mix them to move them in the yard or if one train of type of R211s is disabled and they need another train to push it. But I can’t possibly fathom them running an R211A and R211T set in the same train in passenger service. 

19 hours ago, Lex said:

How did we go from someone implying the bullet is superfluous to someone implying the text in the bullet is superfluous?

18 hours ago, Metro CSW said:

The bullet sign nitpicking here is almost hilarious....

 

I can't wait to see what people will say about the announcements lol

Honestly, I don’t really care. As long as it’s easy for riders to easily ID whether the train is a local, express or short-turning at Great Kills that’s what matters. If they want to do “SI” in a circle or diamond, I really don’t have a problem with it. I’m sure it’ll be better than the current cars which display the destination in tiny letters in the same place the route letter was displayed on the Transit R44s. I mean the new cars will display the train’s destination over the front door and have a second line to display Local or Express, if need be, same as the Transit R211s.

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

So new digital bullets for the  have finally been shown. An Orange diamond SI bullet which obviously is going to be for express service while I'm going to assume local service is going to be a blue circle SI. Now all that is left is to figure out what the announcements are.

I still think it would have been better to just have a regular window there. This giant “SI” bullet will look silly and is pointless since there’s only one line.

23 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

 

IND World's Fair Line:

Hot take but in hindsight, they should've kept this with QBLVD local trains terminating there as an improved and permanent terminal station. Given how high ridership is at Flushing Main St on the , I actually think it would've had a decent number of riders, though not super high ridership.

 

If it weren’t for the big, bad Van Wyck, I’d suggest putting a station on the east side of Jamaica Yard near 77th Avenue that  and  trains can stop at, then loop around the yard to head back downtown. This is somewhat similar to what Broad Street Line trains do in Philadelphia at the Fern Rock station, but they loop around the yard first then stop at the station. Unfortunately, having to cross over the Van Wyck at 77th Avenue would probably not make such a station here in Queens.

17 hours ago, foggymetro said:

Also, one thing I noticed is that they seem to have a different headlight design.

I’m surprised they kept the round LED route sign like the Transit R211s have. I thought they were going to get a regular left-side window, like on the R142/142A series. I mean, it’s not like the SI R211s will operate on more than one line.

1 hour ago, Ale188 said:

Well, take. A. Look. At. THIS!

https://twitter.com/TheFourFoot/status/1649162528352530432

Wow. That IS a lot. 

3 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Refitting the front end of the R160s is a waste of money.

 

Digital ads are probably the only R211 feature you'll see in the older NTT which has already been done in some of the cars. Multiple ads produces additional revenue for the MTA so there's a benefit in doing that.

I think it would be worth it to fit a large electronic route sign up front on the older NTT’s where the  insignia is, while refitting a destination display up top where the red LED route sign currently is. It would make it much easier for riders to identify their train from a farther distance.

On 4/25/2023 at 9:09 PM, Chris89292 said:

I wonder why there is no express service on the West end line, or at least on subway lines that have three tracks, what’s the point of having a middle track, I know some are only used for storage, but there is a few middle tracks that can have a purpose 

The current DeKalb and CPW service plans put a limit on the number tph that can run on the  and if half those trains ran peak express between Bay Pkwy and 9th Ave, the skipped stations would have very infrequent service. You’d have to run the  more frequently for an express to be possible on the West End Line, but it’s just not possible under the current setup for the  to run much more frequently. 

On 4/23/2023 at 11:52 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I don't think it will be considered sadly. With the recent MTA megaprojects, they often look at them at very face value rather than thinking about how it could tie into the larger system long term.

Another thing I've noticed is with these MTA reports on megaprojects, they seem to intestinally exclude anything more robust than the one they tunnel-vision for. A good example would be with SAS; the original report from the early 2000s listed alternatives like BRT, light rail, jitney vans (lol), a line only North of 63rd St, and converting Lexington Avenue to B-division, but didn't list more robust alternatives like a quad-track subway or a line that somehow had a whole new branch into Brooklyn or Queens. The current SAS proposal with the  and  was the best and most significant option on that list, but still far from perfect as many have discussed.

From their initial winter report, it seems the MTA has tunnel-vision for Utica Avenue being an extension of Eastern Parkway. Not only is it the most robust option listed (tied with Fulton St extension), but the report talks so much about the Eastern Parkway line in general, even in areas that don't serve Utica Av. To me, it seems like they just wanna do a whole Eastern Parkway line enhancing megaproject, that would fix Rodgers, add a new yard, perhaps extend the current  a stop past new lots, and yes build some form of Utica Av subway as a branch. Another thing that needs to be addressed imo is the Nostrand Av line needs a better terminal, and this can be done without actually extending the line.

The fact that the current  proposal lacks a Queens service and doesn’t even plan for one definitely shows “tunnel vision” on the MTA’s part.

With Utica, though, it’s really not easy to do it as anything other than an Eastern Pkwy extension, unless an entirely new line is built. 

On 4/27/2023 at 11:15 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Ye, I tend to agree Utica Av subway should either be a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway if the MTA wants to do cheap, or just a whole new B-division line that could have provisions to continue into Williamsburg and then Manhattan. Trying to connect to Fulton St or Broadway (Brooklyn) for revenue service might create too many problems, though there would obv need to be some sort of connection to the rest of the system for transporting trains and stuff.

Yeah, looking back on what I wrote, I think a  extension is probably the best for extending an existing line to Utica. You’d be able to provide more frequent service that way, even it is with smaller trains. 

On 4/27/2023 at 10:07 PM, TDL said:

I wouldn’t have a Fulton Line branch to Utica under this proposal, as you Already have three branches of service in Fulton-Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and local. With the addition of one more service, now you have three service, one for each branch. None would have to split. You’d inherit the same problem if one service went to Utica. 
 

Perhaps the Utica line could use the existing shell and terminate there or at Myrtle Ave . 

This is true. Even with an extended  replacing the , if the  is in turn extended to Utica, you still have the issues with a bifurcated . While I don’t think this is necessarily a dealbreaker for a  extension, it still won’t be able to run as frequently as a  extension from Eastern Pkwy. But I don’t think a Utica line should be a one-borough glorified shuttle that terminates at Fulton St or Myrtle Ave.

So how many times per month can we count on 36th Street/Queens Plaza shitting themselves due to "network communications" problems? Twice? Three times?

20 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Ye that is fair; 63rd wasn't originally meant to connect to QBLVD but was meant to increase capacity along that general corridor. Ig my point is the 60th St connection was a band-aid on a larger problem that I think 63rd finally settled once and for all whether intentional or not. Had the 63rd St tunnel been built in it's current form originally, the 60th St connection would've never needed to be built.

I think your point is fair though; neither 4th Av or Fulton Av local are high demand lines; 10tph for each would be more than sufficient and an increase from current service, and Montague could prolly handle 30tph under ideal circumstances (though B-way local can only handle about 22tph max cause of the City Hall S-curve, the remaining trains would have to come from Nassau). I was more worried for far far in the future (50+ years) if one of those becomes significantly higher demand but service is constrained by Montague. The thing is you don't know what things will be like, and you want to plan for the future, but also can't overbuild to make everything as robust as possible. IND overbuilt a lot and much of that infrastructure still isn't utilized today, but there were still a few places where they actually underbuilt because they just couldn't predict the ridership patterns of today, specifically just how used QBLVD would become.

Utica Av likely wouldn't be able to use the shell for the reasons you state. I think the best thing to do would be to do a Canal-St like set up on the  where the trains turn South onto Utica Avenue before actually arriving at the platform, which would be connected to the current Utica Av but quite an annoying transfer. What's also annoying is the next express stop at Nostrand Av is bi-level, so you wouldn't actually get a cross-platform transfer to all services until Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Not the biggest issue, but still annoying.

Well, not exactly. Serious planning for the new tunnel started in 1963. (first at 61st, then 64th and finally 63rd - after objections from Rockefeller University over 64th). This would have been well after the Queens Blvd line was connected into the 60th St Tunnel in 1955. Supposedly, it was the 60th St connection that was meant to relieve the  and  (the NYCTA had also been experimenting with 11-car trains on both lines back then, which wasn’t hard to do with all single units). So I think they had planned for a 60th St connection all along and were finally able to do it in the 50s after they had simplified the service patterns into and out of nearby Queensboro Plaza in 1949. That was when the current pattern of through subway service between Astoria and the 60th St Tunnel. So there was excess capacity for another service in 60th.

I was thinking the same thing about having a separate connecting platform on Utica for the  while the  and  would stop on the existing Fulton St platform. This would also facilitate turning trains back if they were to run the as a shuttle during overnight hours.

13 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I agree, but since 4th Av local still needs to be served by something, that means Montague could become a bottleneck if 4th Av local or Fulton St local ever gain higher demand. That’s why I’d just build a whole new tunnel off the the existing provisions south of Whitehall St. Think of the current 60th St tunnel for instance; the branch built later to connect to Queens Blvd has made the tunnel a huge bottleneck today, and in the end they still had to construct 63rd St tunnel to allow QBLVD to run at full capacity into the city; I wouldn’t want a repeat with Montague.

Utica Av Subway off of Fulton St would be interesting. Would they use the shell above the existing station, and how would the line curve to merge with Fulton? Would a separate Utica Av station need to be constructed, creating a simillar complex to Canal on the ? I worry about somehow creating a 149th st style junction with a sharp turn, or the Utica Avenue Subway not actually stopping at Utica Av on the Fulton St line.

At the very least,  could become dedicated lefferts while all  go to Rockaway. In this scenario, the  would run on weekends instead of the .

 

 

The 63rd Street tunnel was not constructed to relieve congestion in the 60th St Tunnel. It was constructed to relieve overcrowding on the  and  lines, both of which were using the 53rd St Tunnel prior to 2002, by providing a super-express service through Queens on dedicated tracks located in the LIRR Main Line r-o-w, which largely runs parallel to the QB line. They started construction on the tunnel prior to the 1975 fiscal crisis, which put the kibosh on all but two of the MTA's Plan For Action projects (the 63rd St Tunnel and the Archer Ave extension). In the 1980s, the MTA made the decision to connect 63rd to the QBL, rather than leave a "Subway to Nowhere" dead-ending in Queensbridge.

The  could still serve 4th Ave, while the  is diverted into the new connection. I'm not so sure Montague would become a bottleneck if this were to be done. I presume the , which would become a full-time service in this scenario, would run more frequently than the 6-7 tph currently provided by the , so there's your extra service if Fulton Local ever gains higher demand. Without the  cutting onto the local tracks at 34th, the  and  can run more frequently, so there would be a more frequent  for increased 4th Ave local service too.

I'm not sure if using the existing upper-level station shell at Utica is feasible because that may require a sharp curve for northbound  trains to join the Fulton Line. I'm no civil engineer, but you don't want to have tight curves because you want to avoid derailments in the tunnel. It's probably more likely they'd have to go under the existing subway to branch off to Utica.

12 hours ago, TDL said:

Even cheaper option for that, do it 11th Street cut style and have a connection branch off after Court Street under Boerum Place and turning on Schermerhorn. But in the interests of no new construction, the previous proposal works if no construction is to be done

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think branching Montague long term would be a bad idea, but yes that's def an option.

Personally I like branching off from Montague because by having a third Fulton St service in the  or  would eliminate the need for the  and  to merge at Hoyt. This in turn could make it possible to have Utica Ave line branch off Fulton. Under the current  plan, it’s not possible to do this because that would leave only the  or  serving Fulton east of Utica. But with the  or  running local in place of the , it can be moved to the express tracks and branch off Fulton at Utica, leaving two services on Fulton east of there - the  and the  or .

On 4/17/2023 at 7:59 PM, AZthefoamer said:

Not aware of the cab doors being locked. While they are important in emergencies, they mostly get used for homeless people going between cars and begging for money, subway surfers, or smokers. We do not really need them there.

Those aren’t cab doors. They’re end doors or bulkhead doors. And the only ones I ever saw locked on subway cars shorter than 75ft are the ones at the very front and very end of the trains made up of pre-R44 cars, none of which had full-width cabs.