Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[2Line1291]

I had a similar idea to you two where the / were kind of a pair: the is the Culver Express, the becomes the local. The operates via the 6th Avenue line and Queens Blvd while the operates via 2nd Avenue and the Queens Blvd bypass. Both lines would start at Jamaica-179th St and the would end at Coney Island with the ending at Kings Highway.

Or the via Queens Blvd Super Express and Culver Express ending at Coney Island while the via Queens Blvd Express and Culver Local ending at Church Ave

[IAlam]

 You could but what would the difference be? You'd just be shifting the same area from the top of a box to the bottom of a box. What's your pro's and advantages? And are you talking about this plan instead of a reconfiguration?  

It would resolve any issue with the ceiling being to low, and it would also give them enough space to convert it to the columnless space that the MTA wants now. Like I said I was just curious as to how feasible something like that would be, considering the Mezzanine is deeper than the platform, it might cost more to build the escalators. But would require less work to the existing tunnel.  

[HenryB]

Is there still works going on around 72st?

I just took the S/B today (~7:20pm from 96st) and it ran slower than usual due to work on track. It made the ride not as satisfying as other days

[BayParkwayW]

Is there still works going on around 72st?

I just took the S/B today (~7:20pm from 96st) and it ran slower than usual due to work on track. It made the ride not as satisfying as other days

Wouldn't be surprised if there is work, since 24HR service just started on Monday.

[Amtrak706]

Anyone notice that there are just 'S' car stop signs at all four SAS stations, except in the wrong-railing direction where there are '8' and '10' signs?

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Amtrak706

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

That is odd. If all the exits are at the ends of the platforms, you would think that they would want the 8 car trains centered.

 

On a related note why are there train order signals at 72nd?

[Around the Horn]

That is odd. If all the exits are at the ends of the platforms, you would think that they would want the 8 car trains centered.

 

On a related note why are there train order signals at 72nd?

They are centered at all stations except 72nd northbound because there is a punch box there for the crossover.

[Amtrak706]

They are centered at all stations except 72nd northbound because there is a punch box there for the crossover.

Whoops - you're right, I just looked at my other photos. Never mind about the all 4 stations part then. Still, most other stations have multiple punch boxes? I guess that wasn't in the $4.5 billion budget.

[RailRunRob]

It would resolve any issue with the ceiling being to low, and it would also give them enough space to convert it to the columnless space that the MTA wants now. Like I said I was just curious as to how feasible something like that would be, considering the Mezzanine is deeper than the platform, it might cost more to build the escalators. But would require less work to the existing tunnel.  

Umm.. In my mind, you'd still have the same of work. Your digging under the current trackbed, you have to support that while digging a few feet under to create a mezzanine. Wouldn't it just be easier to lower the track bed 20 feet where you're planning your mezzanine? Just build the mezzanine above the lowered trackbed seems easier with access to the street as well. Any way you look at it's a box within a box.  You're just shifting the position of the mezzanine from top to bottom.

[HenryB]

without delay today, my S/B   (depart from 96st at 6:58pm) took only ~1min from 86st to 72st 

Overall it look ~14min from 86st to 14st. How does it compare to      from Lex/86st to 14st at ~7pm?

[RailRunRob]

Technically 

 

14 mins 

10mins

 

I'd say the might be faster during rush.

Edited January 12, 2017 by RailRunRob

[HenryB]

Technically 

 

14 mins 

10mins

 

I'd say the might be faster during rush.

 

 

That's impressive, consider how much more distance, and how many more stops   needs to go through 

[RailRunRob]

That's impressive, consider how much more distance, and how many more stops   needs to go through 

Indeed the is 14 mins as well so the and the are the same amount of time from 86th.

The are both 16 mins from 96th to 14th st as well.

 

The is one min faster from 96th to Canal than the at 20 and 21 mins. 

The Lex is still the fastest line North to South hands down on it's good days.

Edited January 12, 2017 by RailRunRob

[Caelestor]

Indeed the is 14 mins as well so the and the are the same amount of time from 86th.

The are both 16 mins from 96th to 14th st as well.

 

The is one min faster from 96th to Canal than the at 20 and 21 mins. 

The Lex is still the fastest line North to South hands down on it's good days.

 

9 stops on the = 6 stops on the + the 63 St detour.

The best express stretch in the entire subway system is the 20 minute stretch from 125 St to Brooklyn Bridge during off-peak hours. The is always delayed and/or overcrowded during the rush, unfortunately.

[CenSin]

9 stops on the = 6 stops on the + the 63 St detour.

The best express stretch in the entire subway system is the 20 minute stretch from 125 St to Brooklyn Bridge during off-peak hours. The is always delayed and/or overcrowded during the rush, unfortunately.

For transit, paths should be drawn with no compromises. The IND had the right idea with keeping express segments as direct as possible. The BMT also got it right with the Manhattan Bridge. Maximize one path for speed, and another for convenience (many useful station stops).

[cl94]

That is odd. If all the exits are at the ends of the platforms, you would think that they would want the 8 car trains centered.

 

On a related note why are there train order signals at 72nd?

Because 8 car trains will run so often on that line. Especially with most of the NTTs being in 5-car sets and that unlikely to change due to the increased capacity it provides. I doubt we'll ever see trains less than 600' on that line.

[Wallyhorse]

Because 8 car trains will run so often on that line. Especially with most of the NTTs being in 5-car sets and that unlikely to change due to the increased capacity it provides. I doubt we'll ever see trains less than 600' on that line.

Except the will likely be running to 96th and 2nd at some point when the shutdown happens and can always be detoured there if things on QB get jacked up.  

[Union Tpke]

For transit, paths should be drawn with no compromises. The IND had the right idea with keeping express segments as direct as possible. The BMT also got it right with the Manhattan Bridge. Maximize one path for speed, and another for convenience (many useful station stops).

 

The way that the Broadway Line was built was great even though it is not direct. It has access to many more destinations as it crosses across the avenues in addition to all the transfers. That is why passengers on the Brighton Line when most of their Broadway service was replaced with Sixth Avenue service.

[RailRunRob]

The way that the Broadway Line was built was great even though it is not direct. It has access to many more destinations as it crosses across the avenues in addition to all the transfers. That is why passengers on the Brighton Line when most of their Broadway service was replaced with Sixth Avenue service.

Indeed the unique layout of Broadway itself dictates that.

[Caelestor]

Indeed the unique layout of Broadway itself dictates that.

 

Historically, the two main roads of NYC were Broadway and Park Ave / Bowery, which met at Union Square. They preceded the 1811 plan which added the grid north of Houston St. It's not surprising that the intersections of Broadway and the north-south avenues (the "squares") contain the city's busiest commercial districts and subway stations.

 

The way that the Broadway Line was built was great even though it is not direct. It has access to many more destinations as it crosses across the avenues in addition to all the transfers. That is why passengers on the Brighton Line when most of their Broadway service was replaced with Sixth Avenue service.

 

I mentioned this before, but the original IRT subway was supposed to be one single line under Broadway, but the lower half was diverted to Park Ave and Lafayette St due to NIMBYs. This gave the BMT a direct route from the Manhattan Bridge to Midtown West, although the downtown route was forced to take sharp curves to and from Church St because the IRT was in the way. The express tracks of the BMT Broadway Line were supposed to naturally extend up CPW, but the IND decided to build their own 8 Ave Line instead. With UWS having ample subway capacity, the express tracks had to be rerouted east, which eventually happened in 1989.

 

For transit, paths should be drawn with no compromises. The IND had the right idea with keeping express segments as direct as possible. The BMT also got it right with the Manhattan Bridge. Maximize one path for speed, and another for convenience (many useful station stops).

 

The original IRT subway was supposed to be a straight line under Broadway, but NIMBYs forced the line to be rerouted south of 42 St. The H configuration fixed the system and allowed for two direct north-south lines which converged in Downtown, which was the city's main CBD in the early 20th century. The density of stations is an artifact of having all local stops serve only five-car trains until they were extended in the 1940s and 50s. The only thing the IRT really did wrong was to have a ton of inefficient loops to turn around trains in Downtown Manhattan.

 

The BMT actually first proposed a similar system to the IRT, with local trains terminating at City Hall and express trains continuing to Brooklyn. The plan was changed to take advantage of the four unused tracks on the already built Manhattan Bridge, which allowed for more of its Brooklyn lines to be extended into Manhattan.

 

The IND's best design element was to segregate its local routes and express routes outside the CBD so that ridership would be more evenly distributed. For instance, UWS riders had to take the local trains, allowing for the express trains to be less overcrowded. The major design flaw was to not build tunnels for local trains to run from Manhattan into Brooklyn or Queens. Crowding on the Queens Blvd Line is still heavily imbalanced today because of that issue, even with the building of the 63 St tunnel.

[Union Tpke]

Historically, the two main roads of NYC were Broadway and Park Ave / Bowery, which met at Union Square. They preceded the 1811 plan which added the grid north of Houston St. It's not surprising that the intersections of Broadway and the north-south avenues (the "squares") contain the city's busiest commercial districts and subway stations.

 

 

I mentioned this before, but the original IRT subway was supposed to be one single line under Broadway, but the lower half was diverted to Park Ave and Lafayette St due to NIMBYs. This gave the BMT a direct route from the Manhattan Bridge to Midtown West, although the downtown route was forced to take sharp curves to and from Church St because the IRT was in the way. The express tracks of the BMT Broadway Line were supposed to naturally extend up CPW, but the IND decided to build their own 8 Ave Line instead. With UWS having ample subway capacity, the express tracks had to be rerouted east, which eventually happened in 1989.

 

 

The original IRT subway was supposed to be a straight line under Broadway, but NIMBYs forced the line to be rerouted south of 42 St. The H configuration fixed the system and allowed for two direct north-south lines which converged in Downtown, which was the city's main CBD in the early 20th century. The density of stations is an artifact of having all local stops serve only five-car trains until they were extended in the 1940s and 50s. The only thing the IRT really did wrong was to have a ton of inefficient loops to turn around trains in Downtown Manhattan.

 

The BMT actually first proposed a similar system to the IRT, with local trains terminating at City Hall and express trains continuing to Brooklyn. The plan was changed to take advantage of the four unused tracks on the already built Manhattan Bridge, which allowed for more of its Brooklyn lines to be extended into Manhattan.

 

The IND's best design element was to segregate its local routes and express routes outside the CBD so that ridership would be more evenly distributed. For instance, UWS riders had to take the local trains, allowing for the express trains to be less overcrowded. The major design flaw was to not build tunnels for local trains to run from Manhattan into Brooklyn or Queens. Crowding on the Queens Blvd Line is still heavily imbalanced today because of that issue, even with the building of the 63 St tunnel.

 

How would have you built a Manhattan to Queens route for local trains?

Four-tracking 53rd?

[Around the Horn]

How would have you built a Manhattan to Queens route for local trains?

Four-tracking 53rd?

I have a direct connection from the local tracks to 53rd Street without that annoying crossover, and the track to Crosstown would diverge...

[Union Tpke]

I have a direct connection from the local tracks to 53rd Street without that annoying crossover, and the track to Crosstown would diverge...

 

I am referring to how the IND construction would be changed. The 63rd Street Line was not even thought of then.

[HenryB]

Today my S/B (schudeled to depart from 96st at 7:07pm, actual: 7:08~7:09) arrived canel St 3min behind schedule. There wasn't traffic, nor works, nor someone held the door.

 

Interestingly, next arrived at ~7:33pm, 3min ahead of schedule lol

[Around the Horn]

Oh and by the way, the next AAS update removes the annoying "via 2nd Avenue" part