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.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 2/29/2020 at 7:04 PM, Jova42R said:

Is there any feasible way to make a station on a bridge? I was thinking that this could be done on the Manhattan Bridge to provide (B)(D)(N)(Q) service to do DUMBO in addition to the (F).

Also, How expensive would it be to run the (Z) up sixth Avenue local during the non-rush so that sixth Avenue riders would have a Jamaica express to supplement the (M)

For one thing, it would have to be two stations, since the (B)(D) and (N)(Q) run over the bridge on two separate pairs of tracks. Either way, it’s not feasible due to the track grades approaching the bridge and lack of space to put platforms on the span. However, I’ve always wondered (even before online transit forums existed!) if it would be feasible to build to locate a dual-island platform station (underground, of course!) in the MetroTech area just before the tracks begin to split up. I’m not really sure how much distance there is between DeKalb Junction and the DeKalb Avenue station, but if such a station existed, it would allow riders to be able to transfer cross-platform between the (B)(D) and (N)(Q), so that would go towards addressing concerns that DeKalb and Atlantic would be overwhelmed by transferring passengers if DeKalb Junction is deinterlined. 

As for this off-peak (Z) via 6th Avenue, it’s not so much that it would be expensive to run it. Rather, it would be an operational headache to run it. You’d have to sacrifice some (F) and/or (M) service to fit the (Z), even during midday off peak hours. Is there even a significant demand for a direct 6th Avenue service to the Jamaica Avenue el stations during midday off-peak hours?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CenSin said:

Then build out the terminals and power systems, then we’d get 20 TPH local and 20 TPH express?

The question is, why would you build two new tracks towards a place that can't use em effectively? that 40TPH could go somewhere else and you could make the regular (L) 40TPH. 

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Which leads me to ask why 207 St (A) ends at a wall instead of tail tracks? On maps it looks like there’s enough room on B-way to have them without reaching the Harlem River.

Or was it built with plans to go to the Bronx?

I can't say for sure.

IIRC there are provisions for the (C) to connect to the GWB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For one thing, it would have to be two stations, since the (B)(D) and (N)(Q) run over the bridge on two separate pairs of tracks. Either way, it’s not feasible due to the track grades approaching the bridge and lack of space to put platforms on the span. However, I’ve always wondered (even before online transit forums existed!) if it would be feasible to build to locate a dual-island platform station (underground, of course!) in the MetroTech area just before the tracks begin to split up. I’m not really sure how much distance there is between DeKalb Junction and the DeKalb Avenue station, but if such a station existed, it would allow riders to be able to transfer cross-platform between the (B)(D) and (N)(Q), so that would go towards addressing concerns that DeKalb and Atlantic would be overwhelmed by transferring passengers if DeKalb Junction is deinterlined. 

You mean, the old Myrtle Avenue station?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

You mean, the old Myrtle Avenue station?

Well, roughly in that same area. But the old Myrtle Avenue station had side platforms, one of which was destroyed when DeKalb Junction was reconfigured in the 1950s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The question is, why would you build two new tracks towards a place that can't use em effectively? that 40TPH could go somewhere else and you could make the regular (L) 40TPH.

Well, the two new tunnels would have bellmouths as provisions for future expansion—such as to 2 Avenue and East Houston Street from the western end.

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Which leads me to ask why 207 St (A) ends at a wall instead of tail tracks? On maps it looks like there’s enough room on B-way to have them without reaching the Harlem River.

Or was it built with plans to go to the Bronx?

No particular need for tail tracks there. The leads to the 207th St. yards are just south of there, so tail tracks are not needed for train storage. They would help by allowing faster acceleration into the station, but many terminals don't have tail tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Well, the two new tunnels would have bellmouths as provisions for future expansion—such as to 2 Avenue and East Houston Street from the western end.

That leads to the same issue as SAS Phase III though, in that half of it is basically useless for the next century while you wait for the connection, and then that connection is only half available.

You could just build a tunnel to Second Avenue if you wanted that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Deucey said:

Which leads me to ask why 207 St (A) ends at a wall instead of tail tracks? On maps it looks like there’s enough room on B-way to have them without reaching the Harlem River.

Or was it built with plans to go to the Bronx?

No plans were made to go to the Bronx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

IIRC there are provisions for the (C) to connect to the GWB.

Correct, in 174th Street Yard.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For one thing, it would have to be two stations, since the (B)(D) and (N)(Q) run over the bridge on two separate pairs of tracks. Either way, it’s not feasible due to the track grades approaching the bridge and lack of space to put platforms on the span. However, I’ve always wondered (even before online transit forums existed!) if it would be feasible to build to locate a dual-island platform station (underground, of course!) in the MetroTech area just before the tracks begin to split up. I’m not really sure how much distance there is between DeKalb Junction and the DeKalb Avenue station, but if such a station existed, it would allow riders to be able to transfer cross-platform between the (B)(D) and (N)(Q), so that would go towards addressing concerns that DeKalb and Atlantic would be overwhelmed by transferring passengers if DeKalb Junction is deinterlined. 

As for this off-peak (Z) via 6th Avenue, it’s not so much that it would be expensive to run it. Rather, it would be an operational headache to run it. You’d have to sacrifice some (F) and/or (M) service to fit the (Z), even during midday off peak hours. Is there even a significant demand for a direct 6th Avenue service to the Jamaica Avenue el stations during midday off-peak hours?

Also making two stations on the Manhattan bridge will be pointless the bridge is only made for trains going to manhattan or to Brooklyn and also it will take years for the MTA to make two stations on the manhattan bridge and it wouldn't be their Idea as well so Planning to make stations on any kind of bridge going above the ocean will be pointless and stupid so 

 

 

 

L E A R N T H E F A C T S?!?!?!?!?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

Folks, I'm going to need some of you guys to put all of your posts into ONE POST, stop posting multiple times. This isn't Facebook Messenger.

Also, utilize the multi-quote feature, please....

-edit-

Also, stop spacing them out in such a large format...

 

20 minutes ago, Jacob said:

Also making two stations on the Manhattan bridge will be pointless the bridge is only made for trains going to manhattan or to Brooklyn and also it will take years for the MTA to make two stations on the manhattan bridge and it wouldn't be their Idea as well so Planning to make stations on any kind of bridge going above the ocean will be pointless and stupid so 

 

 

 

L E A R N T H E F A C T S?!?!?!?!?

 

Type like a normal person, would you?!?!?!?!? You were told by a moderator in another thread. Just chill out.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Snorunts said:

 

Type like a normal person, would you?!?!?!?!? You were told by a moderator in another thread. Just chill out.....

Okay, Still there's one thing I gotta say.

What is your issue about typing like Still does doing this "H I" Concerns you? Also I don't think this is Facebook It's called NycTransitForums, And it's just a text why you gotta be so strict about it like deal with it (No Disrespect.), And Its my choice if I can do it you aren't my parent, Alright?! I'm just telling facts.

 

Okay, Understand? I'm not trying to be disrespectful it's just I hate when people just get so Concern by Any type of Typing used in chat. Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jacob said:

Okay, Still there's one thing I gotta say.

What is your issue about typing like Still does doing this "H I" Concerns you? Also I don't think this is Facebook It's called NycTransitForums, And it's just a text why you gotta be so strict about it like deal with it (No Disrespect.), And Its my choice if I can do it you aren't my parent, Alright?! I'm just telling facts.

 

Okay, Understand? I'm not trying to be disrespectful it's just I hate when people just get so Concern by Any type of Typing used in chat. Jesus.

Yet you’re being disrespectful after a mod, @Cait Sith told you to stop doing it.

Please stop.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here's a plan for expansion from 1920 that I thought differed from a lot of others of the time. It hasn't received too much coverage despite being as ambitious as it was, and it has a brief feature in "The Routes Not Taken". It was apparently planned to be complete by 1945. If only

Nyc_subway_expansion_1920_map.jpg

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible for the (J)(Z) to run to Bay Ridge-95 St (R) and Bay Parkway (D)
 

I was thinking that the (Z) can duplicate (brownM) service in Brooklyn by having every train head down to Bay Parkway via 4 Av local and the (J) duplicate R service down to 95 St, in order to ease loads on the (R) and to provide more frequent service.

Due to this change, skip-stop service hours can be extended and (Z) service running for longer periods. (J) service to Bay Ridge from Broad can be all days, albeit at a lower frequency during weekends and late nights.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Is it possible for the (J)(Z) to run to Bay Ridge-95 St (R) and Bay Parkway (D)
 

I was thinking that the (Z) can duplicate (brownM) service in Brooklyn by having every train head down to Bay Parkway via 4 Av local and the (J) duplicate R service down to 95 St, in order to ease loads on the (R) and to provide more frequent service.

Due to this change, skip-stop service hours can be extended and (Z) service running for longer periods. (J) service to Bay Ridge from Broad can be all days, albeit at a lower frequency during weekends and late nights.

What do you think?

Physically, yes - they just go past Broad Street and into the Montague tunnel - like (brownM) did before (V) was cancelled. Operationally, depends on whether the switch between BMT Broadway and BMT Nassau St can be used currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Is it possible for the (J)(Z) to run to Bay Ridge-95 St (R) and Bay Parkway (D)
 

I was thinking that the (Z) can duplicate (brownM) service in Brooklyn by having every train head down to Bay Parkway via 4 Av local and the (J) duplicate R service down to 95 St, in order to ease loads on the (R) and to provide more frequent service.

Due to this change, skip-stop service hours can be extended and (Z) service running for longer periods. (J) service to Bay Ridge from Broad can be all days, albeit at a lower frequency during weekends and late nights.

What do you think?

The only way you could do this is have one service (I’d say the (J)) down 4 Av, and cut some (R)s to Whitehall (with a free transfer to Broad). Another idea: run some (N)s via Montague, and have a train from Chambers to some Brooklyn Terminal via a renewed track connection to the Manhattan Bridge (I proposed a service like this (the (RJ)) via Sea Beach Express), and have that be the Nassau-Brooklyn service. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys think that the (MTA) is going to touch the rollsigns on the R68s/68As or leave em alone. Still don't know why they touched the ones on the R62As.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Is it possible for the (J)(Z) to run to Bay Ridge-95 St (R) and Bay Parkway (D)
 

I was thinking that the (Z) can duplicate (brownM) service in Brooklyn by having every train head down to Bay Parkway via 4 Av local and the (J) duplicate R service down to 95 St, in order to ease loads on the (R) and to provide more frequent service.

Due to this change, skip-stop service hours can be extended and (Z) service running for longer periods. (J) service to Bay Ridge from Broad can be all days, albeit at a lower frequency during weekends and late nights.

What do you think?

 

22 hours ago, Deucey said:

Physically, yes - they just go past Broad Street and into the Montague tunnel - like (brownM) did before (V) was cancelled. Operationally, depends on whether the switch between BMT Broadway and BMT Nassau St can be used currently.

 

18 hours ago, Jova42R said:

The only way you could do this is have one service (I’d say the (J)) down 4 Av, and cut some (R)s to Whitehall (with a free transfer to Broad). Another idea: run some (N)s via Montague, and have a train from Chambers to some Brooklyn Terminal via a renewed track connection to the Manhattan Bridge (I proposed a service like this (the (RJ)) via Sea Beach Express), and have that be the Nassau-Brooklyn service. Thoughts?

 

I understand, i think to expand on what @MeeP15-9112 is saying is that obviously we debated this time and time again can you add one of the Nassau services to supplement 4th ave locals on weekends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/4/2020 at 1:34 PM, MeeP15-9112 said:

Is it possible for the (J)(Z) to run to Bay Ridge-95 St (R) and Bay Parkway (D)
 

I was thinking that the (Z) can duplicate (brownM) service in Brooklyn by having every train head down to Bay Parkway via 4 Av local and the (J) duplicate R service down to 95 St, in order to ease loads on the (R) and to provide more frequent service.

Due to this change, skip-stop service hours can be extended and (Z) service running for longer periods. (J) service to Bay Ridge from Broad can be all days, albeit at a lower frequency during weekends and late nights.

What do you think?

It is definitely possible, but keep in mind that the (J) and (Z) run 12 tph combined for a grand total of just two hours each weekday. So if you run the (J) to Bay Ridge and the (Z) to Bay Parkway, that’s just six trains per hour on each line. It wouldn’t be that much more service than what the (D) or (R) alone currently provide. Plus, we’ve already had Nassau St service to/from Bay Parkway (D) in the form of the old (brownM), which ran the same number of trains per hour. It wasn’t well-used and got cut in 2010.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Q23 via 108 said:

You guys think that the (MTA) is going to touch the rollsigns on the R68s/68As or leave em alone. Still don't know why they touched the ones on the R62As.

Nope, they already did this in 2000-2001. They only recently added a 96th/2nd ave sticker over an unused reading in 2016-17

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another fine example of the MTA trying to fix what wasn’t broke. Only the R68/R68A route roll signs needed (Q) and (W) roll signs. The originals only had Q and W in diamonds. And putting the borough or neighborhood name above the station name was just plain ridiculous. Notice that they didn’t repeat that with new R62/R62A side rolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 1:53 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's a plan for expansion from 1920 that I thought differed from a lot of others of the time. It hasn't received too much coverage despite being as ambitious as it was, and it has a brief feature in "The Routes Not Taken". It was apparently planned to be complete by 1945. If only

Nyc_subway_expansion_1920_map.jpg

Part of the reason why this doesn't have a lot of coverage is that it was basically drawn to fill in the blanks, so to speak, but many of these wouldn't have made much sense even when this plan was developed. As an example, most of the roads pictured for these new lines in Staten Island or Queens did not actually exist, and they still don't. It also is very clearly extremely downtown-centric, but as we know today Midtown is the real core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2020 at 4:53 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here's a plan for expansion from 1920 that I thought differed from a lot of others of the time. It hasn't received too much coverage despite being as ambitious as it was, and it has a brief feature in "The Routes Not Taken". It was apparently planned to be complete by 1945. If only

Nyc_subway_expansion_1920_map.jpg

A further testament that New York City is where dreams get stolen (as opposed to becoming true). We're so far gone from Carrie's New York. Another theft is bound to happen in three weeks of EPIC proportions. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Another fine example of the MTA trying to fix what wasn’t broke. Only the R68/R68A route roll signs needed (Q) and (W) roll signs. The originals only had Q and W in diamonds. And putting the borough or neighborhood name above the station name was just plain ridiculous. Notice that they didn’t repeat that with new R62/R62A side rolls.

I mean, do you guys REALLY care?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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