What would a 6-tracked line look like?

[CenSin]

Double, triple, and quadruple-tracked lines are quite common in the subway system with mostly consistent patterns (ex: express tracks centered, local station platforms on the sides, express stations with two island platforms, etc.). Since 2 Avenue was planned to have up to 6 tracks for a stretch of the line, what would that have looked like?

[LRG]

Look at 135th Street on the Central Park West section of the Eighth Avenue Line, or between Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway on the Brighton Line and there's your answer.

[MattTrain]

To add to what LRG said, go look at the DeKalb Avenue station where the and lines serve and where the bypass (except late nights where both lines serve that station)

[Fresh Pond]

I guess he means when all 6 tracks have to platform

[King Of RedBirds]

Think of the old atlantic ave elevated station with all tracks use platforms

[Roadcruiser1]

I guess he means when all 6 tracks have to platform

 

Then Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue would be the best example. Even though it has eight tracks you can take out two tracks and remove a platform and you can see how big it is.

[FriedChikkin]

Then Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue would be the best example. Even though it has eight tracks you can take out two tracks and remove a platform and you can see how big it is.

 

I think this is what was implied by the original post. It might also be less of a headache for passengers during G.O.s but I can't imagine that any amount of MetroCard sales would be able to offset the ballooned digging and construction costs.

[N6 Limited]

I guess he means when all 6 tracks have to platform

 

Hoyt-Schermerhorn!

 

or perhaps 145th st IND. Two levels.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

Look at 135th Street on the Central Park West section of the Eighth Avenue Line, or between Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway on the Brighton Line and there's your answer.

 

brighton beach is 4 tracks not 6!

[Dj Hammers]

brighton beach is 4 tracks not 6!

 

Between Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway, there are 6 tracks. The extra two tracks occupy the space that is taken up by platforms at Brighton Beach and Ocean Parkway, and are used for lay ups.

[Eric B]

I too often sometimes wondered what a full line (not just a pair of sidings like BB or 135th, or two lines crossing or splitting up, like Hoyt-Schermerhorn or 145th) would be like.

The question would focus on the express stations (the local stations would be obvious).

Would all express stations be like Hoyt? Would there be some like DeKalb, with a super express that skips even some express stations, and then the super express stations would be like Hoyt?

And at those stations, would it alternate as to which two tracks (each direction) would share a platform?

 

Or would it be more like Atlantic (IRT) or 34th/7th and 8th, but with the local tracks having their own platforms against the wall of the station, and a regular four track, two platform station in the middle?

 

Or a combination of all of these (with maybe some double decking as well)?

 

That seems to be what he's asking.

[MikeGerald]

One example of a 6-track station is the A-C-G Hoyt- Schermerhorn Streets station, where the "C" (or HH) local trains to Court Street occupy the outside tracks, the A express tracks occupy the "middle" tracks, and G trains occupy the inner most tracks.

 

While the 135th Street-St. Nicholas Avenue station is a 6 track station it is operated as a regular 4-track local station - where the extra tracks are layup tracks.

 

Most of us are used to the 4-track local/express arrangement of tracks, where it is easy to what are the functions of each track. The real issue with a 6-track arrangement is what function would the extra two tracks serve?

 

For example would those extra two tracks serve as a kind of "super-express" track?

 

Just a thought.

Mike

[CenSin]

I too often sometimes wondered what a full line (not just a pair of sidings like BB or 135th, or two lines crossing or splitting up, like Hoyt-Schermerhorn or 145th) would be like.

The question would focus on the express stations (the local stations would be obvious).

Would all express stations be like Hoyt? Would there be some like DeKalb, with a super express that skips even some express stations, and then the super express stations would be like Hoyt?

And at those stations, would it alternate as to which two tracks (each direction) would share a platform?

 

Or would it be more like Atlantic (IRT) or 34th/7th and 8th, but with the local tracks having their own platforms against the wall of the station, and a regular four track, two platform station in the middle?

 

Or a combination of all of these (with maybe some double decking as well)?

 

That seems to be what he's asking.

This is more like the kind of answer I'm looking for. I mean… it should be obvious that I know of the existence of DeKalb Avenue and Hoyt–Schermerhon. () I even live in Coney Island. …which is why I used the term line instead of station. It implies that all 6 tracks would be used to carry passengers for a long stretch of track as well.

 

Most of us are used to the 4-track local/express arrangement of tracks, where it is easy to what are the functions of each track. The real issue with a 6-track arrangement is what function would the extra two tracks serve?

 

For example would those extra two tracks serve as a kind of "super-express" track?

I've read that the MTA once considered making the Queens Boulevard express tracks peak-direction only by having both express tracks run trains in the same direction during rush hours with only the local track serving trains in the opposite direction. I'm speculating that such a 6-tracked line that was planned for 2 Avenue had only extra tracks for redundancy. Between Chambers Street and Essex Street on the Nassau Street line for example, there are 4 tracks, but all 4 tracks serve all of the stations along the line.

 

While the 135th Street-St. Nicholas Avenue station is a 6 track station it is operated as a regular 4-track local station - where the extra tracks are layup tracks.

Well… 7 tracks technically, but it's only a way point station like West 4 Street.

[GojiMet86]

Perhaps four of the tracks (one local and one express) would serve more than two trains routes, while the other extra pair of tracks would serve only one or two routes. Or two pairs might serve B-Division trains while the other pair would serve A-Division trains.

[CenSin]

Perhaps four of the tracks (one local and one express) would serve more than two trains routes, while the other extra pair of tracks would serve only one or two routes. Or two pairs might serve B-Division trains while the other pair would serve A-Division trains.

Not very likely in this day and age. The 2 Avenue line planned by the IND would have been entirely B division-compatible anyway. I'm guessing perhaps it could be an expensive way to completely eliminate merging trains much like how the ( and never merge with the and along 6 Avenue.

[TwoTimer]

Double, triple, and quadruple-tracked lines are quite common in the subway system with mostly consistent patterns (ex: express tracks centered, local station platforms on the sides, express stations with two island platforms, etc.). Since 2 Avenue was planned to have up to 6 tracks for a stretch of the line, what would that have looked like?

 

Probably local - express - super express, as provisions for the line to go into the Bronx was also thrown around, and other super express setups were being proposed as well as a means to bring less packed trains to the express stations further down the line, and to be able to bypass entire or even several residential neighborhoods (which the Queens super express was supposed to do). The "express" as we have it now is nice, but as we see over on the Lex during the AM try gettin on a at 86th or 125th... (the is a easier proposition but still tough), and we didn't even get into heavily commerical areas when the trains begin to empty out (ever so slightly) until 59th.

 

That express pilot was the closest to a super express one would have gotten, as it basically brought an empty (by Lex standards) train into 149-GC. The biggest problem and the reason it got shelved was one really wasn't adding capacity to the line (just diverting already used capacity to the express track), and all those bypassed local stations really could have used those extra trains. The railfans just loved it because it was a rare express run (even though the pilot was characterized as a GO technically)... if only it had a RFW on tech trains lol.

 

What might have happened was one of two things: the 5th/6th track was storage since train yards was already allocated in the Bronx, no room to eat up loads of land for another one, or to have a super express line where trains from the Bronx bypass the UES entirely (think of how trains bypass the UWS entirely and get away with it as CPW is entirely commercial).

[Trainmaster5]

Think of the old atlantic ave elevated station with all tracks use platforms

 

The Atlantic Ave Canarsie- Fulton complex and the Hoyt-Schermerhorn station were the only ones that came to me if I understand the OP's question. DeKalb Avenue and 135th St-St Nick are really like bypasses IMO with no provision intended for more platforms when they were created.

[TwoTimer]

OP's question was a 6 track line with varied revenue services on all tracks (unlike 135, BB and Hoyt) extending at least for a sequence of stations. That's what was meant by 6 track line, not a 6 track station or areas on the mainline with 6 tracks side by side. The best example of such would be Dekalb, but that's only for about one station lengths, with two of the tracks coming from a different area of Brooklyn in each direction.

[Alargule]

AFAIK, plans were to have a two-level structure with four tracks on the upper level in the regular layout (express tracks in the middle, local on the outside) and two tracks for a super express service on the lower level.

[MikeGerald]

The only "problem" that I have with a six track LINE given what we know about the subways today, is that such a six track line would in many cases be "over-kill" in terms of engineering and cost. Subway tracks and tunnels are expensive, expensive to build, to operate, to upgrade. Even the built IND lines were called expensive and over-engineered when the system opened, where many features that were expensive to build turned out to be un-used or not used for what they were intended. Be careful what you build - because you're going to be with it a long time.

 

Remember that there were full-length mezzanines and other station features, trackage and openings for un-built lines, and other stuff that just never happened - with examples for each of the IRT, BMT and IND subway systems.

-------

 

Given all of the above, and the nature of this board - there are times for fantasy. In fantasy - cost is really not an issue, but practical usability is a sought-after goal. So imagine it is 1895, a period when none of the subways existed, but were being discussed. Given your knowledge of how things turned out today - what would you propose for the early IRT subways, the early BMT subways, and the early IND subway lines. Actual reality-based usage is something to keep in mind.

 

For me, the one line that I could think of that would really use a six track LINE would be the Queens Blvd line. I could imagine the Queens Boro station would like as it does now, a regular local/express station. While the Roosevelt Avenue station and the 71st Avenue station -- would look like the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street station. Where on the Manhattan bound side are two platforms and three tracks, and a similar arrangement for the Queens bound side.

 

In this idea, the local stations would remain basically as they are today, but would look like the 135th Street-St. Nicholas Avenue station - side platforms and six tracks. To my way of thinking the local tracks would be used by the G and R trains, where the G-train would run 24/7/365 to/from 71st Avenue.

 

All of the stations east of the 71st AVenue-Forest Hills stations would look as they do now, the ones currently served by only E and F trains.

 

The "regular outer" express tracks would hold the E and M trains, where E-trains (12 tph) would travel to/from the Archer Avenue segment. These express tracks would lead directly to/from the 53rd Street tunnel to the current 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue subway lines. In this scheme, M-trains would travel to/from 179th Street making all local stops from 71st Avenue to 179th Street. About 3 E-trains per rush hour would also start from 179th Street as locals, while E-trains from Archer Avenue would also stop at most of those local stations. The E and M track pathway would be dedicated to the 53rd Street tunnel, Queens Blvd, and the local stations past 71st Avenue.

 

The interior express tracks would hold the F-trains, starting directly from the 63rd Street tunnel, across the Queens Blvd line, and then as express to/from 179th Street. Thus F-trains do not share its tracks with any other line once it has reached the 63rd Street tunnel and in Queens. This allows the F-train to be the "super-express" across 63rd Street, while the M-train becomes the express route for those destined for 53rd Street.

 

This is how I would implement a six track line given today's needs, while not going overboard, and being practical enough for Mike. (Smile)

 

Just my thoughts.

Mike

[CenSin]

The only "problem" that I have with a six track LINE given what we know about the subways today, is that such a six track line would in many cases be "over-kill" in terms of engineering and cost. Subway tracks and tunnels are expensive, expensive to build, to operate, to upgrade. Even the built IND lines were called expensive and over-engineered when the system opened, where many features that were expensive to build turned out to be un-used or not used for what they were intended. Be careful what you build - because you're going to be with it a long time.

Given the purpose of having so many tracks—to add capacity—one would wonder if passengers could be better served by two or three different "skinny" lines rather than one "fat" line. For example, you could make 6 Avenue 8-tracked and have the same capacity as the 6 and 8 Avenue lines combined, however this would obviously not serve Manhattan as well as separating the lines a short distance to broaden geographical coverage.

 

For Queens, the large size of the borough and the consequential travel times associated with traversing the distance makes it wise to add bypass tracks that do not serve large portions of Queens for the benefit of those that live further away from the business district, but for other lines it might be better to have tracks simply for capacity (such as configuring the Canarsie line stations to be like the Nassau Street line stations between Chambers Street and Essex Street), or to build another parallel line serving the same station stops a few streets away. The east side could be better served with 2 double-tracked lines on 2 and 3 Avenues respectively rather than a single quadruple-tracked line going down 2 Avenue. Neither line would get passengers up or down the island any faster, but the stations on each line would be served by less crowded trains frequently.

[sovetskii52]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j415/sovetskii52/detail-eny.png

[TwoTimer]

Queens seems to be the right boro for the 6 tracks, if the lines extended all the way out towards the Nassau border like they do in the Bronx. In that way the lines that started all the way out there would bypass most stops in Queens (except for a select couple) on its way to Manhattan. Manhattan no as there's already four track lines running every block or two. The Bronx is dense and has many stops close together (it really would look close together if IND/BMT length trains ran in areas the IRT runs). I don't think Brooklyn needs anything with 6 tracks, just more coverage for its gaps, which are sporadic and everywhere seemingly.

[CenSin]

http://i1084.photobucket.com/albums/j415/sovetskii52/detail-eny.png

You really need to read some of the previous posts.

 

Queens seems to be the right boro for the 6 tracks, if the lines extended all the way out towards the Nassau border like they do in the Bronx. In that way the lines that started all the way out there would bypass most stops in Queens (except for a select couple) on its way to Manhattan. Manhattan no as there's already four track lines running every block or two. The Bronx is dense and has many stops close together (it really would look close together if IND/BMT length trains ran in areas the IRT runs). I don't think Brooklyn needs anything with 6 tracks, just more coverage for its gaps, which are sporadic and everywhere seemingly.

We can agree on Queens and Brooklyn. For the Bronx, they need another 2~3 branches from a different Manhattan trunk line covering the gaps (as recommended by previous studies). And after the 2 Avenue line is fully built, I don't think there is any area in Manhattan not well-covered by subway service (other than "Central Park East"). Any additions to Manhattan, then, would probably be crosstown or to allow even more throughput from the outer boroughs.

[Brighton Express]

Not very likely in this day and age. The 2 Avenue line planned by the IND would have been entirely B division-compatible anyway. I'm guessing perhaps it could be an expensive way to completely eliminate merging trains much like how the and never merge with the and along 6 Avenue.

 

I think that they should eliminate merging the into a 2T line. They should put the via 2 Av Express, and the local. Throw in a few Express stations too. I do not know exactly how far they are in the project, but they can make that kind of change with about 12 yrs left.

 

Anyways, there is a simulator called trainz that has these types of 6T stations you speak of. I already have them and am constructing a subway route. Copyright goes to Green Eggs n' Pelham of this forum.

 

6T Bypass

 

6T Island

 

And the one that you have been waiting for, the 6T side station.

 

This may be a 4T station, but it shows some very accurate NYCTA tracks (Copyright to BStyles)

 

How about in action (Copyright to Cait Sith)?