T to Dyre Avenue

Surely, they're going to put together a work program to modify the Montague Tunnel so R32s can run through there again if they want to run them on the . Otherwise, the Brighton Line will be a complete shitshow if there's any kind of service problem that prevents trains from getting to the 6th Ave Line.

Isn't the planning to extend the late night to Whitehall? Then you would have the , and all sharing the Montague tunnel.

Agreed. But if you build those two services as part of a future Bronx SAS extension, what would then happen to Lex/125th? Would you still keep SAS service to that station and have three SAS services between 125th and 63rd streets? That would strongly limit the amount of rush hour service you can provide on each branch. Or do you abandon SAS service to Lex/125th so you can provide more service on the two Bronx branches?

The destination sign could be located over the route bullet too. That would be just as good, because then it would be more visible that if it were under the bullet.

Japan has better craftsmanship, better methods and better quality. Not all of Asia does. I wouldn't trust Hyundai Rotem with the R179 or R211 contracts. Or CSR, like the MBTA and CTA are doing with their next subway car contracts. Remember, it's not just SEPTA having trouble with their Rotem trains - MBTA and MetroLink are having major problems with their Rotem commuter rail trains. I'm obviously not going to suggest the MTA award the huge R211 contract - or even issue an transfer contract order on the R179s - to ACF Industries, a company that hasn't built a single subway car for NYC since 1958 just because they're a US-based railcar company. If they ever do decide to go back into the passenger/transit railcar industry, they would have to prove themselves like any other company new to the industry, because they've been out of it for so long. And it doesn't seem like ACF even wants to get back into the subway car-building business. But I am going to say that yes, we actually do have to make things in America, (other than money). Because we can't all be tech wizes, financial wizes, investment bankers, NBA stars, NFL stars, fashion designers, pop stars, the next Mark Zuckerberg or the next Top Model. And we can't rely solely on finance, science, technology (computer and medical) fashion, sports and entertainment/social media to carry the day for the US economy. McDonald's, Wal-mart and Old Navy can't be the only other options for people who can't make it in those fields. We still need heavy industry. What we should be learning from Japan are their better methods for better quality and craftsmanship. Management included, because much of the blame for why so much of our manufacturing is gone can be placed squarely at the feet of the people at the top who were making the decisions. Perhaps then, we might still have a Budd or Pressed Steel or Pullman or St. Louis Car still in business. Or we could conceivably award the R211 contract to an ACF still making passenger trains.

I like it! Finally some color on the trains. They look like they have more personality than the R143s, R160s and (if they ever get here) R179s. And it's great to see the return of a front destination sign, something just about every other subway system in the world has.

It's not like they haven't done it before. Aren't the R188s (the newly built ones) clones of the R142As? And the R142A is an even older car than the R160. Really think the MTA should strongly consider transferring the R179 contract to Kawasaki if they can. I'd prefer to see the cars be part of the R211 contract, but since that's going to be a very different car from the R143s and R160s, it's probably better if the R179s are R160 clones, since that's a proven design.

Not to mention that making the connection to the at 125th would a huge feat itself, given how high up over the street that station is. I'll agree with you that a line across 125th St should probably not go west of St. Nicholas.

Wallyhorse, you greatly overestimate how much of a destination Columbia University is, expansion or not. You also greatly underestimate the feasibility of building a transfer between the , the and Metro North at 125th and Broadway/12th. And I'm sorry, but a train from the Rockaways to Manhattan via a hypothetical 79th St tunnel is a line that will cost a lot of money to build, for a daily ridership that's not going to be very high simply due to the path that train would have to take.

I thought the order was a full 300 cars. Shouldn't that be 3001-3300? I sure hope the R179 order wasn't reduced by 10 cars, given how tight the spare factor currently is. If anything, Bombardier should be offering to build 10 more cars (two more 5-car sets) as compensation for the delays in the order, but given how much it costs to make just one subway car, I doubt they would be so noble to take that big of a financial loss. Hopefully the 5-car sets are the first to come because we really need them with the extension to 96th & 2nd nearing completion. I'd be very surprised if they still view the R110Bs as active since most of them have become glorified static displays.

I'm not sure the Chrystie connection can even handle two 6th Ave-Williamsburg Bridge services without seriously impacting both and service. If there is a need for this "orange T" service, it should run weekdays only terminate at the 2nd Ave station. Then on weekends while the tunnels are shut down, the can run to/from 96/2 - if necessary, of course. It might not be. Not necessarily. I think they do value one-seat rides to a fair extent. Otherwise, junctions such as Columbus Circle, Gold St and Nostrand would have been straight-railed a long time ago. But to the extent Wally proposes, probably not.

You could do an "orange T" as long as it terminates at 2nd Ave . I can't see it being workable if it extends to Brooklyn and Metropolitan Ave via the Williamsburg Bridge. Definitely not on weekdays - would cause a logjam with the existing , , and services.

I wish they could. But that QBL line seems to have weekend G.O.'s scheduled in perpetuity. And when they start CBTC installation, it will really feel that way. I get the feeling that if the MTA and/or the City and State ever decide to take the proposed rail restoration of the Rockaway Beach branch from Rego Park to Ozone Park seriously, they won't want to extend the there, even though that's arguably the best option not called an extended Rockaway Park . I feel they'd opt for the instead, even if that leaves 67th Ave with only the and its short 8-car R160 trains. But you - and Wallyhorse, who has brought this idea up before - are correct in that 96/2 is probably the easiest place to turn the , while allowing it to continue serving the 6th Ave stops on weekends while the is shut down. Yeah I'm thinking there's no way they'll be able to turn the at 57/6 every single weekend or major holiday, no matter how quick of a turnback process it may be. Wally's "orange T" proposal is a different story, especially if it goes through the Chrystie connection in addition to the .

So, yet another one-seat ride that's going to merge off of one line (the ) and onto another (the ), potentially delaying both services and limiting the number of trains that can be run on all three lines. As if we don't already have enough of those. Well, if this service to 96th & 2nd is meant to be a way around the shutdown of the Canarsie tunnels, then it has to go away once the is back up and running between Brooklyn and Manhattan, just like past G.O.'s that had the turning at 57th & 6th. Because if the on Broadway isn't that far away from the 6th Ave Line, then there really isn't a need for an on 2nd Ave at all, is there? CBTC work on Queens Blvd has nothing to do with anything related to the train shutdown and the doesn't run on QB on weekends now anyway.

But if this so-called most densely populated gets a direct weekend service to the 6th Avenue Line in the form of the train, what makes you think there won't be demand for the same direct 6th Ave service on weekdays too? Weekday subway ridership is higher and 6th Avenue is literally block-after-block of office towers in the 40's and 50's.

Having to tunnel deep under 125th St in order to shore up the existing 125th Station with its three levels (mezzanine, uptown trains, downtown trains) will be very expensive in its own right. It might actually be more cost effective to just continue the into the Bronx and make a connection with the at 138th and 3rd. It would certainly cost more due to the further tunneling to the north, including under the Harlem River - although some of the higher costs could be mitigated by sinking a pre-fabricated tunnel under the Harlem River (like the 63rd St tunnel). But it would be an easier connection between the and lines thanks to the existing station's more conventional layout. And by moving the transfer point between the and one stop north, it would relieve crowding at 125th caused by people transferring from the to the and and give line riders more of an incentive to switch to the over sticking with the and . However, going further north to 149th St - as effective as that would be - would really cost way more than the current Phase 2 plan to stub-end at 125th and Lex.

Keeping it simple just isn't your thing, is it? Why would you ditch the long-used and designations for skip-stop in favor of an alphanumeric J1 and J2? When has the MTA ever used alphanumeric designations for train routes and why should they start now? Why not just use a different letter for your proposed service? There are plenty of unused letters like K or P which could fit the bill, although I kind of think your 24-hour service running from Nassau St to Bay Ridge is a bit overkill, especially with the running through the Montague Tunnel and both the and running on the 4th Ave local overnight. It really remains to be seen if there is a real need for Nassau St-4th Ave local service outside of rush hours, so that's why I think a limited short-turn running between Broadway Junction and Bay Ridge during the "peak of the peak" (roughly 7:30-9 AM and 4:30-6 PM) should be tried out before any kind of full-time service runs from southern Brooklyn to the Nassau St line.

It would be even better if they could go up to 149 & 3rd as part of Phase 2 (especially for the crowd), though I'd really like to get over to 149/Grand Concourse to capture some of the crowd. For those of you who just joined this topic, bear in mind that I (like everyone else) already know that Phase 2 calls for taking the line to 125 & Lex. But like CenSin, I am questioning whether that is the best option for Phase 2, or if it might actually be more effective to take the just a short distance into the South Bronx to connect with one or two of the existing lines there.

CenSin, you bring up a very valid point about the Lex/125 transfer. It may see less than projected. And it's going to be very expensive to build because it will have to be built deep to clear the existing triple-deck 125th St station. Let's be honest here, if you take the or into Manhattan and currently transfer to the or to get to Midtown or Lower Manhattan faster, would you really give that up for a train that won't run as frequently as the and combined and that's located two levels down? Phase 2 is supposed to be the easiest and least expensive part of the entire SAS project, but it sounds like the connection at 125th and Lex is going to make it much more expensive and complex than it needs to be. I wonder if it might actually be just as cost-effective to just continue the north on 2nd Ave after 125, cross under the Harlem River, under Lincoln Ave and terminate at 3rd Ave/138 St with a transfer to the there. Think about it for a moment. Yes, it will be expensive with a tunnel under the river. But they can sink a pre-fabricated tunnel like the 63rd St tunnel (but shorter). But I think a 138th St transfer would be better for enticing line riders off of the and because the transfer would be one stop earlier and it would be much faster and easier with all service on the same level (as opposed to 125 with separate levels for uptown and downtown trains). And with tail tracks pointing north, it would make any further extension into the Bronx that much easier to start. Furthermore, it would relieve crowding at 125th. Right. And it would be easier to do that by giving the SAS a foothold in the Bronx with a transfer station at 138th and 3rd vs 125th and Lex.

I know. My point about the is that it shares its entire route in Manhattan with the , so extending it to Brooklyn to cover for the may not work so well because the would very likely be subject to the same delays the would experience in the event of a service problem.

The lower-level City Hall storage tracks face the wrong way for Brooklyn-bound service. They'd most likely have to go north to Canal Street to relay before turning south to head to Brooklyn. I'm not sure if those extra tracks at Canal can even be used to turn trains on a regular basis. There really isn't another place on the Broadway line to store trains to protect the service in Brooklyn. I always thought the point of having a supplemental service on a line was to provide a choice of destinations on that line. The wouldn't really do that. Wouldn't it just duplicate the ? If there's a problem on the Broadway line in Manhattan, the and would both be affected by it. The , at least, goes to a different part of Lower Manhattan, even if it doesn't go to Midtown.

Why does Hudson Yards have to do with a hypothetical train to/from the Culver line? Why would it have anything to do with a Culver express train service?

I like my suggestion (from the most recent Coney Island express thread) to revive the as a Coney Island-oriented super express better. This service would run via the Sea Beach Line, the 4th Ave express, 6th Ave express and the CPW line. It would cause far less conflict with other subway lines, although the should run local on CPW to avoid overloading the express tracks, which are very busy with the and trains. Or instead of CPW, this could run up to 96th St and 2nd Ave once that line opens by merging with the north of Rockefeller Center (Q trains used to do this when they operated via 6th Ave), then switching over to the at Lexington/63rd St.

If either the or the were to branch off down Utica, no train would be able to terminate there, so the would probably continue to go to Flatbush.

Why not just take those <E> trains and run THOSE trains to/from Coney Island via the Rutgers Tunnel and Culver express tracks? Wouldn't that be a whole lot easier and better than juggling so many letters around? And Culver el riders can at least still have 10-car trains which they would not have with the C. You seem to be ok with cutting service to the WTC platform to once every 15-30 minutes with this K train. What I don't think you realize is that E trains leave that platform standing room only. If you really want all those so-called lazy people to walk to the express platform at Chambers, then you are going to have herds of people stampeding that way, crowding the passageway and overwhelming that last stairway closest to WTC. Just think about that. This is not the same Lower Manhattan of 2001 or 2002 that was reeling from the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Believe it or not, Rogers Junction might actually prove Wallyhorse's point. It's a very crowded junction with the 2, 3 and 5 trains sharing tracks between Nostrand and Franklin Avenues. All of those lines run as frequently as the F during rush hours and more frequently than the C or M. And they've been sharing that short set of tracks day in and day out for decades. It's far from a perfect setup, but the MTA seems to be able to live with it and expects Brooklyn IRT commuters to live with it too. I'm not even sure if they have a real plan to decongest Rogers Junction (I sure hope they do).