T to Dyre Avenue

FWIW, his coms director says it won’t preclude restoring rail onto the branch and that they’re working with the MTA, but I want to see a concrete plan for that, before I fully believe him. Then the old SubChatters are the only ones who care about that. I work in Court with a lot of people from Bay Ridge, many of whom are not young. All of them take the express bus. In fact, they shun the train. They wouldn’t miss it if were replaced by another subway line. And if said subway ran express between 36th St and the Manny B, they might like it better. And who knows? Some might even switch from the express buses to the train.

The car wash, yard tracks and shop are definitely fair points about why upgrading to 10-car trains in the BMT East would be a Herculean effort. But maybe not so much for 9-car trains. After all, the BMT ran 8-car trains of Standards (67.5 ft apiece) which were 540 ft long, same as a train of nine 60-footers. The operational feng shui? Fair enough about swapping the and northern terminals. In fact, there really is no need for two Broadway-QBL services. But I fail to see how running the to Jamaica Center is a terrible idea. You mention that Jamaica riders would lose their connection to the . But what if Jamaica riders didn’t have to transfer to the already crowded ? What if there were another option to get where they need to go? By taking the via QB express and 63rd, there could be. Because the runs parallel to the from just south of the Flatiron District to Canal St. And the runs parallel to the the rest of the way down Lower Manhattan. Riders from Queens who are headed to those areas could either stay on the or transfer cross-platform to the for stations that the doesn’t stop at. Yes, JC can’t turn more than 12 tph and that’s why we have three ‘s per hour going to/from 179. The runs less frequently than the (due to its own switch location problems at Stillwell Ave plus the madness of DeKalb Junction), so I’d be surprised if JC can’t handle the just fine.

Chicago and London run much shorter trains than NYC, so OPTO is safer to do there. Yes, BART and WMATA run trains as long as ours with OPTO, but their stations are much newer than ours and were designed for OPTO right from the start. Even in Chicago, there are repeated calls for the CTA to return to TPTO, due to safety concerns on the trains themselves.

Sorry…I had to cut out some of your post so I could have enough bullets for my response (I think 75 is still the limit per post, including bullets from quoted posts). The problem with sending both the and via 63rd and QBL express is that the tunnel wasn’t designed for Broadway service to go that way, but rather to upper 2nd Ave. So you’d either have to have all trains negotiate the existing crossover switches (which I’ve read are low-speed) to enter Lex-63rd on the side currently used by the - which will put a limit on the number of tph that can run there - or spend $$$$ to reconfigure the tracks so the can straight-rail through Lex-63rd with fewer limits on tph. This is why I’m more in favor of leaving the on 2nd Ave if we ever get to Phase 3. So, for QBL, this would be a preference for an and local to FH via 53rd and an and express to Jamaica via 63rd with the serving as the “spine” SAS line and the being rerouted to Astoria. This would also allow the to function as a “real service,” which can also operate in Brooklyn express along the line. Though it would also likely force the to be reduced to a part-time service that overlays the in Queens and the in Manhattan and Brooklyn, with a local-express merge at 57th (please, for the love of God, not at 34th or Prince!). Wallyhorse did bring up an interesting point about the possibility of running 9-car trains, which I’ll address below. I also agree with doing an station at 59th-61st and 2nd to connect with the and . I strongly feel the MTA not planning a station there is a big oversight. But then again, that’s maybe because they don’t really want to build a full length SAS. But I think you might have to move that switch even if you wanted to do 9-car trains. And 9-car trains would still be a 10 percent service cut for Archer Ave riders versus the current trains. Unless you run it more frequently. But the awkward crossover location at between Parsons and Sutphin-Archer, the sharp curves on both sides of the Willy B, and the flat junction with the at Myrtle will prevent running a more frequent . This is why I suggested running the into Queens via 63rd. The can run to/from Archer and still continue all the way down to Lower Manhattan with 10-car trains, thus no cut in service. And I do think you can get away with 9-car trains on SAS from 125th to the LES (at least initially), since they can be supplemented by 10-car trains from 125th to 72nd and 10-car trains from 59th to Houston.

I presume that’s once the pilot set(s) of the new fleet is/are accepted into passenger service. They have to have a substantial amount of the old cars on hand in case the new cars begin experiencing mechanical problems before the base order is complete.

Number 4 is the best service plan IMHO. Number 3 is basically the MTA's current plan, which will leave the SAS south of 72nd with much less frequent service, though not as bad as in Number 2's plan. At least in Number 1, you can have frequent service with both the and for most of 2nd Ave. But I'd much rather leave the 2010-16 Broadway service pattern in the scrap heap of subway service plans where it belongs. Broadway was a complete shit show during those years with both the 34th and Prince switches in regular use. Let's not revisit that again. I think if there's a 63rd St-SAS service, it should run express alongside the . So perhaps via 63rd and Queens Blvd express with the replacing the to Jamaica Center.* The would remain unchanged. via 53rd and Queens Blvd local, with both turning at 71st-Continental and the continuing to South Brooklyn via the line. rerouted to Astoria. In order for it to have a yard at one end, either build connecting tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to 38th Street Yard in South Brooklyn, or do the Vanshnook reroute proposal like so, Deinterlining with One Switch *However, if the replaces the , then it has to run 10-car trains, which would require lengthening the current platforms in Brooklyn and South Queens to accommodate 10-car trains. So one possible way around that could be to run the as the 63rd-SAS service and run the from Essex all the way up 2nd Ave. I think you could get away with 8-car trains if it's running alongside the on upper 2nd Ave and the on lower 2nd Ave.

Yes and no. I could see running an service alongside the between 63rd St and Houston with the diverging at a reconfigured Chrystie St connection to continue along the current route to Metropolitan. But how would you fit the and above 63rd? There isn't enough capacity for all three services (unless you limit them to 10 tph or less apiece) and the current operational segment of the SAS isn't designed to be easily converted to a 4-track line. Neither are the existing tunnels further north that are meant to be incorporated into Phase 2. It would be best if only two of those services operate north of 63rd and the other one goes to Queens, either via the 63rd St Tunnel or its own separate tunnel.

That’s a real blast from the past there.

There should also be at least one other SAS service in addition to the south of 63rd St. It would be ridiculous to spend $$$$ on the line south of 63rd and be forced to operate it well below capacity.

For subways I think they should replace the current turnstiles with rotogates. That, at least, would put a stop to people jumping the turnstiles to avoid paying the fare. Though that’s not going to help very much if the MTA doesn’t start treating its emergency gates like, well, emergency gates and stops leaving them unlocked.

This I can agree with. Once there’s enough base order R211s in service, put all the 4-car R179 sets in ENY while the 5-car sets stay with the and/or lines. Maybe an extended or service into South Brooklyn can be operated with those extra cars, especially with upcoming BQE closures coming our way.

Well, if both extensions are done and the is sent down the RBB and the via the LIE, then I suppose the could be sent back onto Queens Blvd. I mean, something would have to stop at 67th Ave and provide QB local service all the way between 71st and Roosevelt. But that’s pretty much the only way I’d be in favor of sending the back to QB.

But so does terminating the at Whitehall and making the full time and extending it to Brooklyn in the ‘s place. The is completely unnecessary. And don’t tell me about “old timers” and “residents who still want it.” How would you know that?

I’m not too keen on the idea of sending all QB local service to the Rockaways. You run the risk of over-serving both branches (I assume the services to Far Rockaway and Rock Park would be eliminated in favor of the and ). And if you board an or at any of the local stops west of Woodhaven Blvd, you’d have to transfer to the for Rego Park, whereas you don’t have to do that now. You’ve also got quite a lot of merging between the , and both in Queens at Kew Gardens and Forest Hills, and in Manhattan at 2nd Avenue. I just can’t see how that’s a true improvement over the current QBL services. And three 6th Ave local services is going to be a very tight fit. You have to assume nothing will ever go wrong for this to run well. We all know that’ll never happen, especially when they need to reroute 8th Ave services over the 6th Ave Line. Or vice versa. But I do agree that Woodhaven should be made an express stop.

It would be interesting if the R160s with the most unusual propulsion sound replaced the most unusual-looking cars ordered post-Unification (post-1940).

No! The logical move to shorten the is to run it via Queenslink and turn it at Whitehall St. The would then replace the in Brooklyn. And the does not have to run local and via the Montague Tunnel at all. Like so... https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/ Only difference from Van is that the would be the only service on the West End Line and 4th Ave Local (because it's replacing the in Brooklyn). Maybe have a / peak local/express pattern on the West End Line similar to the / in The Bronx and the / in Queens.

I think @Trainmaster5 was talking about the line riders who transferred there for 6th or 8th Ave service after that transfer opened in 1988. They had other options for West Side service. As for Queenslink, I'm in favor of it as long as they don't cram the on QBL. I know there are some people who pine for the to come back to Forest Hills and believe the MTA greatly underestimated the demand for it when they cut it to Court Square, and accuse riders who point out there is far more demand for Manhattan-bound service of being selfish (happened to me on Reddit). But I'm not going to back off from that. Three locals on QBL is going to be a tight squeeze, especially if two of them will still be terminating at 71st Ave. My objection to running the via Queenslink is that it already has too many merges and it's the first to go and the last to come back when QBL shits the bed (which is often). With a truncated (to Whitehall or City Hall), at least you have a seven-day train that is less likely to get the boot in a service meltdown and you're able to preserve the ability to run three services on acceptable headways whenever one or two tracks is out of service for construction. Though I do wonder how Queenslink/RBB would be integrated into a deinterlined QBL.

Or did they? (It was a lot more than 50 years, btw; it was exactly 61 years to the day.) If the and needed 11-car trains to handle service, then you know ridership had to be high enough to justify it. However, neither train has operated 11-car trains in a very long time because it's not possible to do so now. The R160's would have to have a new trailer car inserted in some of the 5-car sets like they had to do when they transferred R142A trains from the to the . They'd also have to extend the platforms on the elevated Culver Line stations in Brooklyn to accept trains longer than 10 cars. The FTA wanted the tunnel to have full-time service running through through the tunnel. Why wouldn't they? But specifically how that would be accomplished was left up to the MTA/NYCTA, as stated in this Final EIS report from June 1992. MTA came to the conclusion that the "Local-Express" alternative (connecting 63rd to both the local and express tracks) would be better at relieving the overcrowding on the and than the "Local" alternative (connecting only to the local tracks). The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA or other transit agencies specifically how and where to run their trains. And I think this response has more to do with why the got moved to 63rd versus what the FTA wanted: That would definitely have been a good reason to move the and substitute the like they did. Unfortunately, it came with the consequence of creating delays between Queens Plaza and 36th St, due to all to the merging that goes on there now. Pre-December 2001, the only merge was between the and at Queens Plaza. After, it became a merge between the and in both directions at 36th plus a merge between the (now the ) and the northbound and the southbound at Queens Plaza.

The LIRR didn’t want this line 60 years ago and they don’t want it back now. Why force them to take it back? The southern end of the line already has subways running on it. I fail to see how you’d be “cramming it” into QBL. All you’re doing is rerouting one local service off QB and onto the branch, while the remaining local service continues to serve 67th Ave and turn at 71st. How is that “cramming?” Now, if you wanted to extend the back to 71st as well, like the Queenslink people are calling for, then that could be considered cramming. The can replace the overnights and weekends in 63rd St. The FTA didn’t tell them they had to reroute the into 63rd. The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA where to run their trains. I mean, the FTA definitely had no problems with the running weekdays, the overnights and the on weekends through 63rd St for 11 years. This wouldn’t be any different, except for the running 8-car R160 trains. The MTA decided to reroute the entirely on their own. It was because they wanted fewer people going through 53rd because the Lex/53rd stop got severely overcrowded when both the and ran through there.

All interesting proposals, other than the (or ) to Red Hook. I’d be more in favor of connecting that to the Fulton St local tracks somewhere between Schermerhorn and Lafayette. The via 2nd Ave/125 could certainly be useful, but then what would replace it on Queens Blvd? Maybe a second 2nd Avenue service that could run via 63rd, while either the or uses Queenslink. I guess you can have the in a deinterlined QBL as the Queenslink service. But it should shown on the map as a separate blue line from the where they operate together to show more clearly that the isn’t turning onto Liberty Ave or the isn’t continuing north to Queens Blvd.

The MTA’s grossly inflated $8 billion estimate was a blatant attempt to shut everyone up who was in favor of reusing the right-of-way, because they didn’t (and possibly still don’t really) want to do it. Thankfully, the Queenslink people commissioned, their own independent study that found that restoring subway service on the Rockaway Beach Branch would cost far less than what the MTA and Systra (over)estimated. For more, go here… https://thequeenslink.org/the-report/

Well, it's good to see a good number of Queens pols, including Congressman Meeks and BP Richards are on board with conducting an EIS on the RBB/Queenslink. Though I still remain opposed to extending the back to 71st Avenue and would prefer they divert the (terminating at Whitehall) instead of the . A Dozen-Plus Electeds Back QueensLink Subway Expansion – Streetsblog New York City

They both have six tracks, but that’s where the similarities end. And the “black tracks,” as @mrsman called them, merge out of the local tracks north of 125th, then back in with them and the express tracks just north of 135th. They don’t seem like anything more than storage tracks. I think to make them useful for more than just that, you’d have to extend them. But then they’d get in the path of the tracks headed to 145th St Lower Level. Without redoing the 145th St junction, I don’t think you can run the uptown via St. Nicholas/Upper Broadway without interfering with the existing services. And that’s just not worth doing.

It is interesting that they’re looking at these ideas, even though they appear to be crying poverty once again, so we’ll be lucky if we get anywhere beyond SAS Phase 2 (if we get even that). I’m not really sold on the idea of sending the to Red Hook and ending it at 4th-9th, a station already served by the . Maybe if they could figure a connection from the to the Fulton St line, that would be of much greater value. I’m not opposed to a 125th crosstown service. I don’t even mind if it has a track connection to the CPW Line at 125th. What I am opposed to is having the or train continue north onto the CPW line. This is unnecessary reverse-branching. And doing so would force a cut in and/or service to make room for the . Even a deinterlined CPW will still experience merging delays wherever the cuts in. And I’m also opposed to using the Concourse or 207th yards as a new home for the . The can stay based in Coney Island; no need to rack up extra miles on deadheading to Concourse or 207. It would be much better to have the or (preferably the IMHO; the already has plenty on its plate as the Broadway/Brighton train) to focus as a 125 crosstown. If there’s a need to go from Concourse, Wash Heights or the West Bronx to the East Side, then just transfer to the at 125. If it’s very important to have a transfer to the line, then the best way to get there would be for the to turn north onto Amsterdam, then west onto 136th or 138th and connect to the at 137th there. One option they listed was for the line to go all the way to Riverside, turn north then back east to connect to the . That route is just plain silly.

Without a map, these wholesale changes I’ve been seeing on the last few pages are very difficult to envision. But I’m not really sure what’s the purpose of eliminating the and . And what’s happening with the IRT lines? There’s no north or south terminals for any of them. And why eliminate the while having and lines?