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.
Sign in to follow this  
El person

My (messy) fantasy map

Recommended Posts

I'm working on a fantasy map. It's messy, I only made it in a few weeks. Here's what I have now. Soon I might post an upgraded one. (I took the SAS diagram from another one.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I accidentally posted before I was done, and when I tried to add the map in this post, I realized that you need to have it on a URL.

 

Sorry for the inconvenience. B)

 

:o:cry::):cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was able to get it on a URL, here it is:

nycsubwaymap1.jpg

 

Changes:

 

(1):Service remains the same.

 

(2):Service remains the same.

 

(3):Service extended to the Jerome Av line. Runs to Bedford Pk Blvd, runs express peak direction only. (A new switch is added north of Kingsbridge Rd.) 148th St is replaced by a full length 145 St.

 

(4):Service remains the same.

 

(5):Service remains the same.

 

(6):Service extended to Co-op City.

 

<6>:Service removed due to new B division express tracks.

 

(7):Service extend in both directions. In Queens, it is extended east, continuing on Roosevelt Ave, then turning onto Northern Blvd, going all the way to Little Neck. In Manhattan, Service is extended down 11th Av, onto West St, and then going into the South ferry loop. Both these extensions have four tracks, and the (7) runs express.

 

<7>:Service removed due to new B division express tracks.

 

(8):New service running between WTC and Douglaston Pkwy. Local version of the (7).

 

(A):No service on Lefferts line, replaced by (C).

 

(:o:Due to the new (K), service rerouted from Central Park W to the Queens Blvd line. Replaces the (V) in Queens (I expect negative feedback about this :) .)

 

(C):Service extended to Lefferts Blvd

 

(D):Service extended in The Bronx to Gun Hill Rd.

 

(E):Service extended in Queens to Merrick Blvd.

 

(F):Service remains the same.

 

(G):Service remains the same.

 

(J):Service extended in Queens to Merrick Blvd.

 

(K):New service. Starts at Church Av in Brooklyn, an runs express on the IND Culver line. It goes through the Rutgers Street Tunnel, and Bypasses 2nd Av via the now unused express tracks. It switches to the 8th Av line at W 4th and runs express (New switches are added north of W 4th.) It replaces the (:) in uptown and The Bronx. No service during weekends.

 

(L):Service extended to the new 11th Av line in Manhattan.

 

(M):Service remains the same.

 

(N):New B division express tracks are added to the Flushing line. The (N) uses these tracks, and after Willets Pt, it goes through a new underground line, passing through College Pt and ending in Whitestone.

 

(Q):Service is extended to the SAS, ending at 125th St, and it runs express (They put in express tracks after all.)

 

(R):Service remains the same.

 

(S):All remain the same.

 

(T):New service. Follows the planned route in Manhattan, except instead of ending at 125th St, it goes up the Pelham line on new B division express tracks. After the Pelham Park station, it goes through a tunnel to City Island.

 

(V):Service removed. Replaced by a rerouting of the(B).

 

(W):Service now runs all times.

 

(Y):New service. It starts on the new Manhattan (L) terminal, and runs down a new route on Avenue C.

 

(Z):Service remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not draw the track alignment on the Pelham line to show how this connection works? :)

 

EDIT: A and B division trains can't really share tracks unless you've made all the trains slimmer and made the platforms extend further out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This involves remodeling IRT lines by slimming the platforms and widening the tunnels/adjusting curves correct? (Which I do think should be done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your comments. B)

 

Both the Pelham and Flushing lines have express tracks above the old local ones. The A and B division cars never share any track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note, I'm making constructive criticisms and not slaming your map.*

 

Why are you mixing A division lines with B division ones? They are NOT compatable.

 

The WTC area, no one is going to want to walk that far from the 8 to the E, plus I would think the PA would not allow such a long tunnel under their property.

 

I like it, more or less.

The (K) seems kind of pointless to me, but I really like the addition of the (Y)..

 

There is no point of the K since riders from Culver can just transfer to the A/C lines at Jay St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note, I'm making constructive criticisms and not slaming your map.*

 

Why are you mixing A division lines with B division ones? They are NOT compatable.

 

The WTC area, no one is going to want to walk that far from the 8 to the E, plus I would think the PA would not allow such a long tunnel under their property.

 

 

 

There is no point of the K since riders from Culver can just transfer to the A/C lines at Jay St.

 

The A and B division trains aren't being mixed, read my previous posts. The (K) Line makes use of the Culver express tracks, and would be useful for people on the Grand Concourse and Culver lines who want to get to 8th Av.

 

I'm slamming your constructive criticism. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I still don't see the need of the K since riders can just take the A/C at Jay st and you are going to cause delays at W4th to open the switch to allow the K to get from 8th Av to the 6th Av lines.

 

How are you not going to make them mixed? That's going to kill flexibility should there be problems on the express or local tracks. If you want a B division line, I say you should make it separate from the current lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How are you not going to make them mixed? That's going to kill flexibility should there be problems on the express or local tracks. If you want a B division line, I say you should make it separate from the current lines.

That's right. It costs more to widen a line than to build an entirely new one. The Flushing line, for example, currently does not have the structures necessary to support four tracks. In addition, you would not be able to fit four tracks there without demolishing some buildings along the side. If a problem were to happen on either the express or local tracks, you would not be able to switch trains to another track to bypass the problem thus crippling an entire line. Putting A and B division tracks together as a four track line is essentially the same as two double track lines running parallel. My suggestion would be to leave the IRT alone—let it keep the three tracks for flexibility—and build new tracks underneath the road as a subway or as a separate line elsewhere. This applies to the Pelham line as well.

 

(You would have probably gotten away with it if you had said the elevated structure was demolished and replaced with a subway. B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's right. It costs more to widen a line than to build an entirely new one. The Flushing line, for example, currently does not have the structures necessary to support four tracks. In addition, you would not be able to fit four tracks there without demolishing some buildings along the side. If a problem were to happen on either the express or local tracks, you would not be able to switch trains to another track to bypass the problem thus crippling an entire line. Putting A and B division tracks together as a four track line is essentially the same as two double track lines running parallel. My suggestion would be to leave the IRT alone—let it keep the three tracks for flexibility—and build new tracks underneath the road as a subway or as a separate line elsewhere. This applies to the Pelham line as well.

 

(You would have probably gotten away with it if you had said the elevated structure was demolished and replaced with a subway. B))

 

Totally agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (7)/(N) idea can work, but ONLY if you make the (7) line to B Division specs (I think this means widening the Steinway tunnel). Since this is a fantasy map it would be much cheaper to extend/shave back the platforms at every station than to add a fourth track, or to build a new level for the (N).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 63 Street line from Queensbridge would be a convenient place to start another line in Queens. They deliberately left room in the structure to connect another two tracks to the line. I watched a rail fan video on YouTube and could see an extra exit where another tunnel might attach itself.

 

This is what I was thinking about, but it wasn't well shown on the small track map.
but this doesn't show that intention:
74813005.png

 

here's a track map near queens plaza.

It looks like they are on the same level to me. You could have left the third purple track there and drawn dashed yellow lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This track map points out where a possible connection may be done (circled in gray).

 

image-E449_4B15FAF7.jpg

 

We could possibly reroute the N or Q through the 63 Street line to the new line in Queens, or simply send the F there, leaving the 63 Street connector to the Queens Boulevard line unused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, but is extending the (T) to City Island really necessary? Its almost a fishing village of 2500 people. I know Broad Channel with 3000 residents has its own subway station, but that is important as it is a terminal for the Rockaway Park shuttle. Just wondering if it wouldn't be more practical to terminate at Pelham Bay Park instead?

 

(To any City Islanders on this forum, no offense, but the island does seem too insignificant to warrant subway service, unless the (MTA) builds a new yard there to store cars for the (T)).

 

Also, the (K) does seem unnecessary. For some reason, every proposed (K) service on these forums are to some degree not dictated by necessity, whether as a local in Manhattan (8 AV line), as a service to Rockaway Park or as an express service on the Culver line.

 

If you must have the (K) on Culver, extend it to Coney Island and cut the (F) short. Most express trains have longer routes than their corresponding local, and perform local service outside the local train's route, e.g. the (A) runs local between 207th and 168th St, and again between Euclid Av and Lefferts/Far Rockaway, while the (C) is local in between. Having an express that is shorter than its local makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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