second ave question...(T)

[Eric B]

 

I think it was planned to have 3 tracks, but phase 2 is a long way from now and anything can happen. I do hope they learned from capacity issues on the , , and lines (maybe even the ) as a two-track terminal is not really able to sustain high throughput.

I thought I heard that that was dropped along with the middle track at 72nd.

[R32 3348]

The (MTA)'s current plan for the SAS focus exclusively on Manhattan. No denying that. But much like how the Queens Boulevard IND line has turnouts for branches that will more than likely never get built, the SAS line should also have turnouts for expansion into the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Harlem. Clearly, there is not enough money to build the whole SAS (is there ever?), but if the one day finds itself able to expand the SAS out of Manhattan's East Side, it should be able to have "jump-off points" where it can do that. The 63rd Street tunnel already has two such points. One is in Queens where the turns off to join the QBL and the other is at Second Avenue to allow for a Queens-Second Avenue service (which would be a very long-awaited replacement for the Second Avenue El service that ran via the 59th Street Bridge until 1942). But my point is, the SAS must be built with expansion to the rest of the City in mind. No one at the has to know exactly what path the SAS will take when they build those turnouts, the point is to have them there so the line can be easily expanded.

They have much more than enough time to plan for bellmouths, though. Phase I is likely not going to be finished until 2018. The might start planning for Phase II and have the final design ready by the time Phase I is done, but even in the slight chance they do that, that's still at the very least five years away. The isn't even worrying about Phases 2-4 and has no funding commitments to any of those projects so far.

Yeah true, but I think if a train enters into a terminal at normal speeds, that would be more effective than having an extra set of tracks to platform at.

The faster a train enters, the faster it clears the switch to allow the other train to leave the station. That's why I'm hoping the Javits center station has long enough tail tracks. 3 tracks is nice, but won't do much if trains have to crawl to the bumpers.

Javits will have tail tracks that will extend to near-25th or 26th St.

[Grand Concourse]

Flatbush is the worst when it comes to this, a sharp switch and a station that can barely hold the 10 cars.

Totally agreed. If anything they should've done away with the connecting 'platform' and entrance/exit zone. They should've built tail tracks that extended at least 5 car lengths past the station. Then the trains could at least enter at slightly higher speeds.

For the southern part of the station, they should have HEETs for each platform and a passageway below the trains to allow people to choose which track they want to use.

[Trainmaster5]

Totally agreed. If anything they should've done away with the connecting 'platform' and entrance/exit zone. They should've built tail tracks that extended at least 5 car lengths past the station. Then the trains could at least enter at slightly higher speeds.

For the southern part of the station, they should have HEETs for each platform and a passageway below the trains to allow people to choose which track they want to use.

 

I don't think the Interborough company planned on making Flatbush-Nostrand a permanent terminal but that's what they ended up with in the Dual Contracts era. They also ran 5 car trains back then and the original station was built to platform 8 cars by the look of it. I think the IRT had other expansions in mind but they were scrapped when the Dual Contract era came along. Nevins St lower for example. There is a bellmouth at Utica Ave for s/b service along Utica and the relay tracks south of that station were lined up for Pitkin Ave service which also never materialized.

[Grand Concourse]

Very true. Well I don't think the MTA will continue the line further down Nostrand, but I do think they should have tail tracks beyond the platforms so the trains can move into the station at a normal speed than what it is now. It's just so painfully slow the way the train crawls into the station due to those bumper blocks and walls being at the very end.

[TwoTimer]

The thing is to the least used exit of the trio is that one at the south end. A modest expansion of the one midway down the side and some tail tracks is simple.

[Trainmaster5]

The thing is to the least used exit of the trio is that one at the south end. A modest expansion of the one midway down the side and some tail tracks is simple.

 

Nothing is simple in(MTA) land. Nothing is cheap in land. Repeat chorus.

[TwoTimer]

I don't think the Interborough company planned on making Flatbush-Nostrand a permanent terminal but that's what they ended up with in the Dual Contracts era. They also ran 5 car trains back then and the original station was built to platform 8 cars by the look of it. I think the IRT had other expansions in mind but they were scrapped when the Dual Contract era came along. Nevins St lower for example. There is a bellmouth at Utica Ave for s/b service along Utica and the relay tracks south of that station were lined up for Pitkin Ave service which also never materialized.

 

Hence the side plats, I can't think of any other terminal that got side plats only off the top of my head.

[CenSin]

Hence the side plats, I can't think of any other terminal that got side plats only off the top of my head.

To be technical, Van Cortlandt Park, Woodlawn, Wakefield, and Pelham Bay Park all have side platforms. They just have island platforms in addition to the side platforms.

[Eric B]

 

I don't think the Interborough company planned on making Flatbush-Nostrand a permanent terminal but that's what they ended up with in the Dual Contracts era. They also ran 5 car trains back then and the original station was built to platform 8 cars by the look of it. I think the IRT had other expansions in mind but they were scrapped when the Dual Contract era came along. Nevins St lower for example. There is a bellmouth at Utica Ave for s/b service along Utica and the relay tracks south of that station were lined up for Pitkin Ave service which also never materialized.

I never heard of that one before. I always assumed the relay tracks were what would lead to the Utica line somehow.

[TwoTimer]

To be technical, Van Cortlandt Park, Woodlawn, Wakefield, and Pelham Bay Park all have side platforms. They just have island platforms in addition to the side platforms.

 

How did I know someone would say this, I meant side plats only.

[nightrider]

Technically Brooklyn College-Flatbush Av is built with 2 side platforms, with a bridge in the southern end. At one point, they wanted to extend the tracks further down but it was dropped.

[Grand Concourse]

Now that's a shame...

[Trainmaster5]

I never heard of that one before. I always assumed the relay tracks were what would lead to the Utica line somehow.

 

The Utica Ave station is not really at Utica Ave itself but west of Utica and Eastern Parkway. Ride a s/b train, south motor, and exit at Utica. Let the train pull out and look at the tiled wall on the right side. Just south of the station you'll see the curve and cut-out turning toward Utica Ave itself. Now take the stairs at the south end of the station, up, toward the token booth. Make a right turn,go past Utica tower, and up those stairs to the street. At street level you'll see that, with all that walking s/b, you still haven't reached Utica Ave itself. That cut-out and curve on the platform level are well behind you but you haven't reached Utica Ave proper yet. The relay tracks on the south end of the station lead east(south in subwayland) and end at a wall and bumper block under the intersection of Eastern Parkway, Buffalo Ave and Pitkin Ave. The relay track that curves and goes up on the structure wasn't built for that purpose but as a lead for a middle track for the Livonia line. BTW I learned a lot of this from the last trainmaster in the system and two motorman instructors back in the day, who were never too impatient to answer my questions. As one M/I pointed out it was all public knowledge but if you had to look it up it was located at the Brooklyn Public library at Grand Army Plaza. I believe nycsubway.org. also has some of this info.

[Eric B]

I worked over there three years ago, but I never noticed any such curve, but instead was looking at why it would be so hard for them to connect the express tracks to the Livonia instead of the local. (IIRC, it had to do with one of them ending at the wall, while the other goes to the portal).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I don't think the SAS to Brooklyn would be redundant. I would guess that if the were to run down via 4th Av, it would nearly mirror the lines and at least keep BMT riders from transfering to those lines if they needed to go to Midtown or the UES.

 

....problem is no one wants the , and you can't equally split the into 3 branches w/o pissing off whichever group of riders....

 

I think I know where in Brooklyn the can go and not be redundant B)

 

- Local to Euclid Avenue 24/7

- Express to Far Rockaway 24/7 and Rockaway Park rush hours

- Runs express in Brooklyn and replaces to Lefferts Boulevard. Between midnight and 5 AM, runs as a Shuttle between Euclid and Lefferts.

 

Yes, there's the matter of how the is going to get from Lower Manhattan to Brooklyn. I'd prefer to connect it to the Montague Tunnel, since that tunnel is already under-utilized with just the running there.

 

Perhaps in the year 2525...

[SubwayGuy]

I think I know where in Brooklyn the can go and not be redundant B)

 

- Local to Euclid Avenue 24/7

- Express to Far Rockaway 24/7 and Rockaway Park rush hours

- Runs express in Brooklyn and replaces to Lefferts Boulevard. Between midnight and 5 AM, runs as a Shuttle between Euclid and Lefferts.

 

Yes, there's the matter of how the is going to get from Lower Manhattan to Brooklyn. I'd prefer to connect it to the Montague Tunnel, since that tunnel is already under-utilized with just the running there.

 

Perhaps in the year 2525...

 

Again that won't work. If you send the to Montague, even if you make an entirely separate set of stations so that you don't have the issues with the 480 foot platforms on the Nassau St. Line, once the arrives in Brooklyn, there is no connection to the Brooklyn IND. Service between Brooklyn and Manhattan is adequate as is. However, not so for some of the other boroughs. The Bronx in particular could benefit from expansion at a later date to replace what was lost when the 3rd avenue el was torn down.

[TwoTimer]

Not every line has to go to Brooklyn. As was said earlier, the Bronx can use something between the Concourse and White Plains line. As I said in another forum, can just piggyback the open cut the Metro North uses (not run it on those tracks, but place the structure over it) on Park Av after 161, bringing it up to Fordham and ending there.

[checkmatechamp13]

The current SAS plan calls for a track from north of the 55th street station to join Queens Boulevard. It also has the line ending at 125th street, which does not rule out the possibility of service to the Bronx, to recapture what was lost when the Third Avenue El was torn down.

 

Additional service to Brooklyn is not possible given the constraints I listed above as it was be the most expensive, least useful, and most redundant connection to an outer boro possible from SAS.

 

You're right. There really isn't anywhere it can expand to in Brooklyn. Rather than connecting with another line, it is better to expand service into another area.

As far as 125th Street, it would be good if there was a line under 125th Street, since the line already curves through there. It would be easier than a connection to the Bronx, though the Bronx connection would benefit more people.

 

I don't think the SAS to Brooklyn would be redundant. I would guess that if the were to run down via 4th Av, it would nearly mirror the lines and at least keep BMT riders from transfering to those lines if they needed to go to Midtown or the UES.

 

 

 

Yeah true, but I think if a train enters into a terminal at normal speeds, that would be more effective than having an extra set of tracks to platform at.

The faster a train enters, the faster it clears the switch to allow the other train to leave the station. That's why I'm hoping the Javits center station has long enough tail tracks. 3 tracks is nice, but won't do much if trains have to crawl to the bumpers.

 

The Javits Center station will have tail tracks down to 26th Street (I believe there is a yard being built there, so some of the space will be taken up by trains laying up, but there should be enough space for the train to come in at a normal speed)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Again that won't work. If you send the to Montague, even if you make an entirely separate set of stations so that you don't have the issues with the 480 foot platforms on the Nassau St. Line, once the arrives in Brooklyn, there is no connection to the Brooklyn IND.

 

Oy! I guess I really should have stated clearly in my last post that a connection from the Montague Tunnel to the Brooklyn IND would also have to be built. I am assuming it would be cheaper than building a brand new East River tunnel for the .

 

Service between Brooklyn and Manhattan is adequate as is. However, not so for some of the other boroughs. The Bronx in particular could benefit from expansion at a later date to replace what was lost when the 3rd avenue el was torn down.

Then why is there a whole thread about whether or not the current service to the Rockaways and Lefferts Blvd is adequate? That's what my post was in response to and it's also posted in that thread. I also posted it here in response to Grand Concourse's post about how service in Brooklyn would not be redundant. I don't disagree that service between Brooklyn and Manhattan is adequate as is, but if Fulton St IND service from Lower Manhattan to both the Rockaways and Lefferts is indeed inadequate, well, you've got to go through Brooklyn before you can get to Lefferts. Running the to Euclid allows the to go express in Brooklyn and serve Lefferts. The objection Lefferts riders have about extending the there would go away because the would no longer run local with the replacing the as the Fulton St Local. While it would call for running another train between Manhattan and Brooklyn, it's not really about doing that. It's more about improving service to two areas of southern Queens that have long had to deal with "half a service" because the is split between the Rockaways and Lefferts.

 

I do agree that the Bronx and Queens need more subway service. I would not disagree with you on that.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Not every line has to go to Brooklyn. As was said earlier, the Bronx can use something between the Concourse and White Plains line. As I said in another forum, can just piggyback the open cut the Metro North uses (not run it on those tracks, but place the structure over it) on Park Av after 161, bringing it up to Fordham and ending there.

 

I agree that a Second Avenue service should run through the central Bronx. But I wonder where they'd be able to place supports for a subway structure above Metro-North's open cut, especially given that Park Avenue runs on either side of the cut, right next to it.

[2Line1291]

The along Fulton St w/ the and would also give those riders easier access to East Side of Manhattan instead of crowding onto the trains in Brooklyn. The trains cant be Brooklyn's only one seat to East Side Manhattan forever.

 

I was reading this "The Transport Politic" on the 125th St extension

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2008/11/05/second-avenue-subway-rethink-1/

 

One comment that I've find mind blowing was this one by mark smith

Interestingly, track configurtions on the westside ABCD lines allow for a connection with this proposed 125th street extension that would make it much easier to use, and much less expensive, than building new stations at Broadway and St. Nicholas, as proposed in your diagram here.

 

The so-called ‘Homeball Alley” section of the ABCD lines north of 125th street actually was built for six tracks between 125th and 145th, although only four tracks are currently used. This means that the T (125th st extension) could turn north and run along with the ABCD lines with very little additional construction cost. (A flyover for the B and T to cross north of 135th street might be all the new construction that is necessary.)

 

This T train would skip 135th street, use the C platform at 145th street, and continue north along the C line to a terminus at 168th Street, where a connection with the “1″ train would exist.

 

This routing would provide easy connections from the 1, A-B-C-D lines, and allow the T trains to easily lay up at the yards north of 168th. Since very little new trackage would be required, it would be fairly inexpensive.

 

The only major new contruction would involve the westward portion of the tunnel from the currently projected T terminus at 125-Park Ave to St. Nicholas Ave. Only one new station would be required, at Malcolm X Blvd, providing a connection with the 2-3 trains.

 

[NX Express]

Those tracks already exist, between the express and local tracks btwn. 125 and 145 Street.

[2Line1291]

Those tracks already exist, between the express and local tracks btwn. 125 and 145 Street.

I know/knew that, it said it right here....

The so-called ‘Homeball Alley” section of the ABCD lines north of 125th street actually was built for six tracks between 125th and 145th, although only four tracks are currently used.

 

So now this gives Washington Heights and Harlem around the ( trains one seat to East Side Manhattan. The via Concourse along w/ an extension to Gun Hill Rd/White Plains could be a alternative to building a tunnel along 3rd Ave instead.

[NX Express]

I know/knew that, it said it right here....

 

So now this gives Washington Heights and Harlem around the ( trains one seat to East Side Manhattan. The via Concourse along w/ an extension to Gun Hill Rd/White Plains could be a alternative to building a tunnel along 3rd Ave instead.

 

However, that would be a large half-loop. Maybe the going to 207 and the going to Concourse?