New (S) lines...

[R68 Subway Car]

I think the shuttles are great as is.

[SI Subway]

The is going to run to E96 St so the will be by itself in Astoria. That means the will need to make some sort of return.

 

Astoria doesn't need express service. Hence why it was terminated in 2004. Adding the back gives Broadway the service it needs and deserves (2 local and 2 express).

 

You just contradicted yourself!

 

Again, I don't see the point of a . Where would it go? It's not like it can go anywhere...

[Guest lance25]

Actually he didn't. The Astoria line needs two subway lines serving it or there will be some serious overcrowding. If the could handle the line on its own, the would still terminate at 57 St-7 Av on weekdays. He said the Astoria line itself doesn't need express service as the line is only seven stops long and having the skip most of the stops is counterproductive, hence the express service elimination in '02.

[SI Subway]

Actually he didn't. The Astoria line needs two subway lines serving it or there will be some serious overcrowding. If the could handle the line on its own, the would still terminate at 57 St-7 Av on weekdays. He said the Astoria line itself doesn't need express service as the line is only seven stops long and having the skip most of the stops is counterproductive, hence the express service elimination in '02.

 

Actually, he did. He said that Astoria needed 2 services, then he didn't. I agree that Astoria needs two services, so why can't the have two northbound terminals? Similar to the three southbound terminals on the

 

Thanks for the sign, by the way.

[Guest lance25]

Actually, he did. He said that Astoria needed 2 services, then he didn't. I agree that Astoria needs two services, so why can't the have two northbound terminals? Similar to the three southbound terminals on the

 

Thanks for the sign, by the way.

 

R160 basically stated that Astoria needs two subway lines, but not express service. Astoria express service proved to be ineffective as most riders were at the "local" stations.

 

As to the branch service, I don't see that happening as that limits the number of trains that serve either the Second Avenue or Astoria line as the has to be the same south of 57 St-7 Av or Times Sq-42 St. For example, let's say the runs 12 trains per hour. Now split those up with half to Astoria and half to 96 St. You can't add any more trains as that jams up the line and you can't run the Astoria (Q)s local as that will confuse the riders. On top of that, both lines are under-served, whereas with the resurrection of the post-Manhattan Bridge construction , Second Avenue gets all 12 (Q)s and Astoria still has its Broadway Local and Broadway Express (assuming the resumes its pre-service cuts service pattern).

[SI Subway]

R160 basically stated that Astoria needs two subway lines, but not express service. Astoria express service proved to be ineffective as most riders were at the "local" stations.

 

As to the branch service, I don't see that happening as that limits the number of trains that serve either the Second Avenue or Astoria line as the has to be the same south of 57 St-7 Av or Times Sq-42 St. For example, let's say the runs 12 trains per hour. Now split those up with half to Astoria and half to 96 St. You can't add any more trains as that jams up the line and you can't run the Astoria (Q)s local as that will confuse the riders. On top of that, both lines are under-served, whereas with the resurrection of the post-Manhattan Bridge construction , Second Avenue gets all 12 (Q)s and Astoria still has its Broadway Local and Broadway Express (assuming the resumes its pre-service cuts service pattern).

 

And you have no problem with the having two terminals in the same direction?

 

The Astoria service isn't a problem, because the number of trains could easily be increased. Or, as I have said numerous times, an would be created for weekends and rush hours for additional service.

[Guest lance25]

And you have no problem with the having two terminals in the same direction?

 

The Astoria service isn't a problem, because the number of trains could easily be increased. Or, as I have said numerous times, an would be created for weekends and rush hours for additional service.

 

No I don't have a problem with the split (A)s. Both the Lefferts branch and the Rockaways branch are basically dead areas of the line and the relatively low number of riders on either branch easily justifies the split service as well as the limited number of trains per branch. According to last year's ridership stats, besides Far Rockaway and Beach 60 St, none of the Rockaways stations got over half a million riders, some not even close, whereas every station on the Astoria line except 39 Av received well over a million swipes.

 

When Second Avenue opens (supposedly in 2016), the expects many riders to migrate from the to the for easier access to the west side and Brooklyn. Now that won't happen if the runs at atrocious headways because some of the trains are running to Ditmars. Right now, the runs seven trains to Ditmars Blvd and that's partially because the Astoria line can't handle so many trains. Now, let's say they add seven more trains to send up to 96 St. That's still 8-10 minute intervals, compared to the much less two-minute ones for the .

 

That's the only reason I support the coming back, even if it's just the last version of the line from Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall St. All the trains go to 96 St/2 Av, resulting in much better 3-5 minute intervals while the and take care of the Queens branch.

[R160]

You just contradicted yourself!

 

Again, I don't see the point of a . Where would it go? It's not like it can go anywhere...

 

As lance said, I did not. I said Astoria doesn't need an Express service. It DOES need two lines. The used to run express until 2004, but the demand was so low that the MTA got rid of it.

 

The can have multiple terminals because those areas are not nearly as dense as Astoria is. The stations in the Rockaways have the lowest ridership numbers in the system.

 

Also, the could run in Astoria, down Broadway, and it can terminate either at Whitehall on the middle track or it can go does West End (like the used to) to give West End riders access to Lower Manhattan and Broadway without having to transfer.

 

Having a would be more confusing...Astoria doesn't need express service and the runs local on Broadway as well as Sea Beach b/c of construction. So the would be pointless. Adding a moves the back to Broadway express while the and remain the same.

[SI Subway]

When Second Avenue opens (supposedly in 2016), the expects many riders to migrate from the to the for easier access to the west side and Brooklyn. Now that won't happen if the runs at atrocious headways because some of the trains are running to Ditmars. Right now, the runs seven trains to Ditmars Blvd and that's partially because the Astoria line can't handle so many trains. Now, let's say they add seven more trains to send up to 96 St. That's still 8-10 minute intervals, compared to the much less two-minute ones for the .

 

How about an absolutely crazy idea: How about the Q runs Astoria-Coney Island, 96th-Coney Island, and Astoria-96th! Would this be possible? I don't see an issue with headways here. Actually, this may be crazy enough to work... Is this any better?

 

And I never said that the would be express,(well I previously did, but I changed my mind) but a special rush-hour service to accompany the regular

[R160]

How about an absolutely crazy idea: How about the Q runs Astoria-Coney Island, 96th-Coney Island, and Astoria-96th! Would this be possible? I don't see an issue with headways here. Actually, this may be crazy enough to work... Is this any better?

 

And I never said that the would be express,(well I previously did, but I changed my mind) but a special rush-hour service to accompany the regular

 

That idea wouldn't work (look at a track map of the 57th Street station: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/pm_west_1.png). The train would have to switch to the express track right before the 57th Street and then turn around. The black section of track north of 57th St is where the will run to 96th.

 

Having services that run only during rush hours is too complicated...Sending empty "special rush-hour" trains to Ditmars to start their service would mess up regular service.

[SI Subway]

That idea wouldn't work (look at a track map of the 57th Street station: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/pm_west_1.png). The train would have to switch to the express track right before the 57th Street and then turn around. The black section of track north of 57th St is where the will run to 96th.

 

Having services that run only during rush hours is too complicated...Sending empty "special rush-hour" trains to Ditmars to start their service would mess up regular service.

 

Who said that new tracks couldn't be created for my idea? In my idea, the Astoria line would join directly with the SAS at 59th St.

 

According to what you say about Astoria, the rush-hour trains wouldn't be empty. the would work in both directions; basically an that runs express in manhattan to get to Astoria quicker. It works for the , , and had worked for the .

[R160]

Who said that new tracks couldn't be created for my idea? In my idea, the Astoria line would join directly with the SAS at 59th St.

 

According to what you say about Astoria, the rush-hour trains wouldn't be empty. the would work in both directions; basically an that runs express in manhattan to get to Astoria quicker. It works for the , , and had worked for the .

 

What do you mean it would join at 59th?

 

And I'm saying that sending these rush hour express trains to Astoria would mess things up. You would have too many trains running at once. In addition to trains running normal, now you would have to get your special train from a yard to a terminal which will make things more chaotic.

 

Also notice the only runs with the , the only runs with the , and the had to end for a reason. If you add an , it affects service in Astoria, on Broadway, as well as in Brooklyn.

[SI Subway]

What do you mean it would join at 59th?

 

And I'm saying that sending these rush hour express trains to Astoria would mess things up. You would have too many trains running at once. In addition to trains running normal, now you would have to get your special train from a yard to a terminal which will make things more chaotic.

 

Also notice the only runs with the , the only runs with the , and the had to end for a reason. If you add an , it affects service in Astoria, on Broadway, as well as in Brooklyn.

 

First, what I mean by "joining at 59th",is that the would join the at approx. 59th st in Manhattan. Second, you yourself stated that another local service was needed on Broadway, so don't give me any "make things chaotic" or "it would mess everything up". Third, the would run the same route as the , just like the and ,so it would only affect service by providing extra trains to Astoria.

[R160]

Your 59th St. idea seems more like foaming to me...if the can go to 96th St. from 57th Street, there's no reason for another connection.

 

Broadway does need another line. It needs a FULL time line, not a rush-hour only line. Also your last sentence confuses me.

[SI Subway]

Your 59th St. idea seems more like foaming to me...if the can go to 96th St. from 57th Street.

 

Broadway does need another line. It needs a FULL time line, not a rush-hour only line. Also your last sentence confuses me.

 

I agree, I said when I proposed it that it was crazy. It was not meant to be taken seriously. I was throwing it out to add some comedic humour. Please stop obsessing over it. :mad:

 

Broadway does need another full-time line, but that is not the point of the . It's purpouse is to provide additional rush-hour service to Astoria. Manhattan is just an extention.

 

Let me rephrase my last sentance: The would use the same route as the , except express in Manhattan instead of the local. This is similar to the following the with express service and the following the with skip-stop sercice.

[IRT Bronx Express]

 

Let me rephrase my last sentance: The would use the same route as the , except express in Manhattan instead of the local. This is similar to the following the with express service and the following the with skip-stop sercice.

A diamond represents peak-direction express service to Manhattan (AM) and from Manhattan (PM). You don't see any diamond (A)/(D)/(Q)/(2)/(3)/etc... indicating bi-directional express service in Manhattan, right? Making the express in Manhattan while reviving the would make more sense instead of confusing riders with and .

[SI Subway]

A diamond represents peak-direction express service to Manhattan (AM) and from Manhattan (PM). You don't see any diamond (A)/(D)/(Q)/(2)/(3)/etc... indicating bi-directional express service in Manhattan, right? Making the express in Manhattan while reviving the would make more sense instead of confusing riders with and .

 

So...What shape would be used for a special rush-hour express IN manhattan, or do I need to make one up?

 

The ,,,,,etc. aren't diamonds because they run full-time, not just during rush-hours

 

Also, how did we get from new ideas for (S)s to talking about new (W)s and <N>s and (Z)s and whatever?

[IRT Bronx Express]

So...What shape would be used for a special rush-hour express IN manhattan, or do I need to make one up?

 

Also, how did we get from new ideas for (S)s to talking about new (W)s and <N>s and (Z)s and whatever?

It's not needed. If there's no shape denoting bi-directional express service in Manhattan, then why a shape is needed? A generic circle is fine.

 

Also, why does it matter if a particular thread goes off topic? It's certainly not the first time this happens and it won't be the last time it happens. Just go with the flow.

[SI Subway]

Also, why does it matter if a particular thread goes off topic? It's certainly not the first time this happens and it won't be the last time it happens. Just go with the flow.

 

I didn't say that I had a problem with off-topic threads, it was rhetorical. I was hoping to get back on track, but I don't have a problem with the current discussion.

[Fresh Pond]

It's not needed. If there's no shape denoting bi-directional express service in Manhattan, then why a shape is needed? A generic circle is fine.

 

Also, why does it matter if a particular thread goes off topic? It's certainly not the first time this happens and it won't be the last time it happens. Just go with the flow.

 

Or just sit & watch as a thread goes downhill and turns into a potential flame war

 

I'm just saying

[trainfan22]

I think there should be a shuttle between Kingsbourgh College and Brighton Beach (:P/(Q) station. Those 1s and 49s are stuffed when the school gets out, and they have private school buses on top of that, and the shuttle could be used during beach season. :cool:

[SI Subway]

Or just sit & watch as a thread goes downhill and turns into a potential flame war

 

I'm just saying

 

A flame war it certainly is...B)

 

I think there should be a shuttle between Kingsbourgh College and Brighton Beach (B)/(Q) station. Those 1s and 49s are stuffed when the school gets out, and they have private school buses on top of that, and the shuttle could be used during beach season. :cool:

 

That's not actually a bad idea. The (B1) and (B49) could use a break.

[Roadcruiser1]

Why don't you just extend the from it's current terminus onto the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch which can support 4 tracks, and have it extended from it's current Canarsie terminal to 59th Street?

[Fresh Pond]

Why don't you just extend the from it's current terminus onto the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch which can support 4 tracks, and have it extended from it's current Canarsie terminal to 59th Street?

 

Oh jeez here we go again...

[SI Subway]

Why don't you just extend the from it's current terminus onto the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch which can support 4 tracks, and have it extended from it's current Canarsie terminal to 59th Street?

 

Oh jeez here we go again...

 

Where would the , or branch, terminate?