Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[Vulturious]

43 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

I wonder if the funding delays, especially those brought on by the whole coronavirus situation, will cause the MTA to rethink their approach to Phase 2.  The 125th spur to Lexington for the MNRR connection is an unnecessary sideshow in my opinion.  Priority number one for them should be 96th-116th and the tunnel under the Harlem River to the Bronx. 

That and looking at ways to bring the costs down for the stations along the existing cut-and-cover sections.  Logic would dictate the easiest solution would be to build those with pocket entrances/exits instead of Horodniceanu's cavernous full-length mezzanines, but I'm sure Capital Construction will find a way to make it more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. 

The realist in me also says that the suburban members of the Board will fight tooth-and-nail for the MNRR thing, unless a truly successful argument could be made against them that limited resources necessitate dropping the 125th tunnel in favor of the Bronx tunnel.

I think it would be a cool idea if they were to go ahead and tunnel towards 125 to connect to the Lexington Av line which could also connect with the MNRR, but that's if they decide to continue west towards the CPW line with a connection onto it at 135 St. It would be very beneficial for them to do that if they plan on doing that so they can have easy reroutes. They don't need to continue running trains from SAS onto CPW, they can just terminate them at St. Nicholas Av-125 St and if something were to happen on 6th Av, they can easily reroute both  and  trains. 

I do have to agree that they should have SAS continue straight into the Bronx. Buses aren't the best replacements for a subway in the long term and I'm pretty sure we can all agree. 

As optimistic as I am about the MTA maybe wanting to rethink their approach to Phase 2, it is also something I don't see happening. This is the MTA after all, their decision making isn't smart, no matter how well their idea is. SAS phase 1 was already expensive as is just to create 3 new stations and 1 completely renovated station along with only 2 tracks. I do not now how doable it is or if it is doable to begin with, but they need to rethink their first phase as well. 2 tracks isn't going to really cut it and especially if the MTA were to introduce phase 3, they would end up having both the new  line and the  operating together on the same tracks. The  is already having issues on Broadway and Dekalb being another big one as well as the merge at Prospect Park. I hope that if they do decide to create a new line in the Bronx connecting to the SAS, it would be the  operating and not the . I've seen proposals that had the  and not the  operating which is pretty dumb since the  would already be long as is from Coney Island via Brighton local, then Broadway, then via SAS.

[Trainmaster5]

6 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I wonder if the funding delays, especially those brought on by the whole coronavirus situation, will cause the MTA to rethink their approach to Phase 2.  The 125th spur to Lexington for the MNRR connection is an unnecessary sideshow in my opinion.  Priority number one for them should be 96th-116th and the tunnel under the Harlem River to the Bronx. 

That and looking at ways to bring the costs down for the stations along the existing cut-and-cover sections.  Logic would dictate the easiest solution would be to build those with pocket entrances/exits instead of Horodniceanu's cavernous full-length mezzanines, but I'm sure Capital Construction will find a way to make it more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. 

The realist in me also says that the suburban members of the Board will fight tooth-and-nail for the MNRR thing, unless a truly successful argument could be made against them that limited resources necessitate dropping the 125th tunnel in favor of the Bronx tunnel.

Thank you for your post. It's been my opinion that the whole 125th St thing was proposed as a sop to gain the approval of the northern suburbs to the whole plan originally.. I know that I'm not the only person who thinks that way.. The NYCT plan should have been focused on NYC  primarily and to me that meant the Bronx. I was born a Brooklynite and am very parochial but what's right is right,  IMO. Before a Utica,  Nostrand,  or SE Queens extension a Bronx replacement for the Third Avenue El should be the focus of any northward extension of the SAS. I consider myself a realist,  rather than just a railfan. Whatever funding comes down the pike should head north,  not west when the line approaches 125th Street. I'm guessing that the focus on LIRR projects like ESA  and the Third and Second track projects made it imperative to throw the northern railroad passengers a bone.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

[darkstar8983]

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I think it would be a cool idea if they were to go ahead and tunnel towards 125 to connect to the Lexington Av line which could also connect with the MNRR, but that's if they decide to continue west towards the CPW line with a connection onto it at 135 St. It would be very beneficial for them to do that if they plan on doing that so they can have easy reroutes. They don't need to continue running trains from SAS onto CPW, they can just terminate them at St. Nicholas Av-125 St and if something were to happen on 6th Av, they can easily reroute both  and  trains. 

I do have to agree that they should have SAS continue straight into the Bronx. Buses aren't the best replacements for a subway in the long term and I'm pretty sure we can all agree. 

As optimistic as I am about the MTA maybe wanting to rethink their approach to Phase 2, it is also something I don't see happening. This is the MTA after all, their decision making isn't smart, no matter how well their idea is. SAS phase 1 was already expensive as is just to create 3 new stations and 1 completely renovated station along with only 2 tracks. I do not now how doable it is or if it is doable to begin with, but they need to rethink their first phase as well. 2 tracks isn't going to really cut it and especially if the MTA were to introduce phase 3, they would end up having both the new  line and the  operating together on the same tracks. The  is already having issues on Broadway and Dekalb being another big one as well as the merge at Prospect Park. I hope that if they do decide to create a new line in the Bronx connecting to the SAS, it would be the  operating and not the . I've seen proposals that had the  and not the  operating which is pretty dumb since the  would already be long as is from Coney Island via Brighton local, then Broadway, then via SAS.

I remember an old 2000's PDF that explained how the split of service was going to be for the  train introduction and Phase 2. 

For Phase 2: if I recall correctly, it called for "19  trains" at the height of the rush hour, which we all know is not feasible with the current DeKalb Av setup and the service setup in South Brooklyn. This would likely call for the  to be shifted (either completely or at least 50%) from Astoria to 2 Av, while an appropriate number of  trains fill in (in addition to a flip of the south terminals of the ) .

For Phase 3, the plan was to split the service levels 50/50 between the  and  (14 trains per hour per route), but considering again, the  reroute and DeKalb Av/South Brooklyn, a more practical solution would be to flip back the Phase 2 plan I just wrote in to how service is currently running in Phase 1 (with the exclusively on 2 Av, the  back in Astoria with the current  setup, and just run 2  trains for every  train, so that way the midtown 2 Av Line gets a considerable service level, rather than be completely dependent on the . This way, it could be 9-10  trains and 18  trains, and the service implications of problems arising in Brooklyn on the  route would not cause a cessation of all service on 2 Av (or 50% of it, which is a significant drop).

[Mtatransit]

On 1/20/2021 at 11:35 AM, Stormxx said:

The R211's will be on the  line. When the  comes out, It'll be in the 2030s.

I dont know why the  are being so lazy, while there are only 3 stops: 106th st, 116th st, and 125th st.

GET A MOVE ON!!!

They are projected to finish the SAS Phase II in 2029 which with delays and all the other MTA stuff will probably be completed in 2040

So Phase III won't be completed until 2060 under the current rate we are going. That is if we get a Phase III.

On 1/20/2021 at 1:11 PM, Stormxx said:

They shouldve waited until the r211 order came to put CBTC on the . 

QBL is the second busiest trunk line out there. I'm not sure how the  will explain to those riders trying to get on the  Express at 74th that they will need to wait, so a completely unrelated line gets new car first.

On 1/20/2021 at 1:35 PM, Stormxx said:

 

If phase 2 costs $4.5 bill for just 3 stations, who knows how much it'll cost for a brand new  train??

Phase I cost 4.5 Billion Phase II will "projected to cost" 7 Billion (and that is with finished tunnels), so Phase III will probably cost 20 Billion. Consider it  inflation

18 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I wonder if the funding delays, especially those brought on by the whole coronavirus situation, will cause the MTA to rethink their approach to Phase 2.  The 125th spur to Lexington for the MNRR connection is an unnecessary sideshow in my opinion.  Priority number one for them should be 96th-116th and the tunnel under the Harlem River to the Bronx. 

That and looking at ways to bring the costs down for the stations along the existing cut-and-cover sections.  Logic would dictate the easiest solution would be to build those with pocket entrances/exits instead of Horodniceanu's cavernous full-length mezzanines, but I'm sure Capital Construction will find a way to make it more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. 

The realist in me also says that the suburban members of the Board will fight tooth-and-nail for the MNRR thing, unless a truly successful argument could be made against them that limited resources necessitate dropping the 125th tunnel in favor of the Bronx tunnel.

l have been saying that its wise to extend the SAS to 3rd Avenue-149th St and call it a day for SAS. While a crosstown SAS sounds nice, with the current speed of construction, I am not sure if the  will ever get to the West Side. 

I rather have a new subway to the Bronx than have a "half" 125th St crosstown

42 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

For Phase 2: if I recall correctly, it called for "19  trains" at the height of the rush hour, which we all know is not feasible with the current DeKalb Av setup and the service setup in South Brooklyn. This would likely call for the  to be shifted (either completely or at least 50%) from Astoria to 2 Av, while an appropriate number of  trains fill in (in addition to a flip of the south terminals of the ) .

I don't think a service cut would be acceptable for Queens Blvd local riders. Unless we find a way to add more  from 2nd Avenue.  

Edited January 25, 2021 by Mtatransit

[darkstar8983]

4 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

They are projected to finish the SAS Phase II in 2029 which with delays and all the other MTA stuff will probably be completed in 2040

So Phase III won't be completed until 2060 under the current rate we are going. That is if we get a Phase III.

QBL is the second busiest trunk line out there. I'm not sure how the  will explain to those riders trying to get on the  Express at 74th that they will need to wait, so a completely unrelated line gets new car first.

Phase I cost 4.5 Billion Phase II will "projected to cost" 7 Billion (and that is with finished tunnels), so Phase III will probably cost 20 Billion. Consider it  inflation

l have been saying that its wise to extend the SAS to 3rd Avenue-149th St and call it a day for SAS. While a crosstown SAS sounds nice, with the current speed of construction, I am not sure if the  will ever get to the West Side. 

I rather have a new subway to the Bronx than have a "half" 125th St crosstown

I don't think a service cut would be acceptable for Queens Blvd local riders. Unless we find a way to add more  from 2nd Avenue.  

Technically there is room for additional  trains, since the 6 Av Local tracks have room for four additional trains (a more even split of to  trains), and the Jamaica Local / Williamsburg Bridge has room for more trains (maybe even leading to an even split of / trains to  trains). So the  technically could be bumped up to 14 TPH while the  can be cut down to 7 TPH (6 TPH terminating at Whitehall St, and the excess  trains ending at Canal St + relaying at City Hall lower level).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I remember an old 2000's PDF that explained how the split of service was going to be for the  train introduction and Phase 2. 

For Phase 2: if I recall correctly, it called for "19  trains" at the height of the rush hour, which we all know is not feasible with the current DeKalb Av setup and the service setup in South Brooklyn. This would likely call for the  to be shifted (either completely or at least 50%) from Astoria to 2 Av, while an appropriate number of  trains fill in (in addition to a flip of the south terminals of the ) .

For Phase 3, the plan was to split the service levels 50/50 between the  and  (14 trains per hour per route), but considering again, the  reroute and DeKalb Av/South Brooklyn, a more practical solution would be to flip back the Phase 2 plan I just wrote in to how service is currently running in Phase 1 (with the exclusively on 2 Av, the  back in Astoria with the current  setup, and just run 2  trains for every  train, so that way the midtown 2 Av Line gets a considerable service level, rather than be completely dependent on the . This way, it could be 9-10  trains and 18  trains, and the service implications of problems arising in Brooklyn on the  route would not cause a cessation of all service on 2 Av (or 50% of it, which is a significant drop).

Agreed that 19 tph on the  isn’t possible with the current setup. Stillwell already has enough trouble turning the current amount of  trains. It certainly won’t be able to turn eight or nine more. And they can’t turn at Brighton Beach without displacing  service. And the current amount of  service will be insufficient once SAS Phase 2 is operational.  So something’s going to have to change. The easiest - and best -  thing is for the  to be seen to SAS and killing the delay-prone  merge at 34th. It would probably have to be completely, because the  runs roughly 8 tph during the rush. So Astoria would be served exclusively by the . Then swap the  and  ‘s south terminals as you said. 

The Phase 3 split will be harder, because it won’t be possible to run the  and  on just two tracks at acceptable rush hour headways. The MTA’s proposed  split was not well thought out. It will hamper service on the southern part of SAS with just the  there, especially if it’s a 50-50 split. Though I don’t think you can run 14  tph anyway with Stillwell unable to turn that much service, let alone the amount the  runs today. I think 18  tph is good, but you still need another service south of 63rd to make up for the absence of the  there. 

6 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

They are projected to finish the SAS Phase II in 2029 which with delays and all the other MTA stuff will probably be completed in 2040

So Phase III won't be completed until 2060 under the current rate we are going. That is if we get a Phase III.

QBL is the second busiest trunk line out there. I'm not sure how the  will explain to those riders trying to get on the  Express at 74th that they will need to wait, so a completely unrelated line gets new car first.

Phase I cost 4.5 Billion Phase II will "projected to cost" 7 Billion (and that is with finished tunnels), so Phase III will probably cost 20 Billion. Consider it  inflation

l have been saying that its wise to extend the SAS to 3rd Avenue-149th St and call it a day for SAS. While a crosstown SAS sounds nice, with the current speed of construction, I am not sure if the  will ever get to the West Side. 

I rather have a new subway to the Bronx than have a "half" 125th St crosstown

I don't think a service cut would be acceptable for Queens Blvd local riders. Unless we find a way to add more  from 2nd Avenue.  

Agreed that the “half crosstown” is exactly that. It’s also a half-assed attempt for the MTA to weasel out of building a Bronx extension by saying Bronx  and  riders can just transfer at 125th. Most won’t, especially if they’re headed farther down the East Side. The line’s tail tracks are planned to end somewhere between 5th and Lenox avenues, where the  and  are, but with no station there, it will be useless for  riders who also have crowded trains entering/leaving The Bronx. I also don’t think a whole lot of Metro-North riders will take advantage of the new connection, which will be in a deep tunnel, which will be far below the elevated Metro-North Station. A Bronx extension would be the right move. 

What service cut on Queens Blvd would there be? Wouldn’t there still be the  and  in Phase 2? In Phase 3/4, we could have the  and a Queens-SAS service that would fill in the extra capacity on the main SAS line south of 63rd Street, so that the  is not handling it alone. 

[40MntVrn]

17 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Thank you for your post. It's been my opinion that the whole 125th St thing was proposed as a sop to gain the approval of the northern suburbs to the whole plan originally.. I know that I'm not the only person who thinks that way.. The NYCT plan should have been focused on NYC  primarily and to me that meant the Bronx. I was born a Brooklynite and am very parochial but what's right is right,  IMO. Before a Utica,  Nostrand,  or SE Queens extension a Bronx replacement for the Third Avenue El should be the focus of any northward extension of the SAS. I consider myself a realist,  rather than just a railfan. Whatever funding comes down the pike should head north,  not west when the line approaches 125th Street. I'm guessing that the focus on LIRR projects like ESA  and the Third and Second track projects made it imperative to throw the northern railroad passengers a bone.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

I mean...could you of have said MORE TRUTHS?!?!

[Vulturious]

8 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I remember an old 2000's PDF that explained how the split of service was going to be for the  train introduction and Phase 2. 

For Phase 2: if I recall correctly, it called for "19  trains" at the height of the rush hour, which we all know is not feasible with the current DeKalb Av setup and the service setup in South Brooklyn. This would likely call for the  to be shifted (either completely or at least 50%) from Astoria to 2 Av, while an appropriate number of  trains fill in (in addition to a flip of the south terminals of the ) .

For Phase 3, the plan was to split the service levels 50/50 between the  and  (14 trains per hour per route), but considering again, the  reroute and DeKalb Av/South Brooklyn, a more practical solution would be to flip back the Phase 2 plan I just wrote in to how service is currently running in Phase 1 (with the exclusively on 2 Av, the  back in Astoria with the current  setup, and just run 2  trains for every  train, so that way the midtown 2 Av Line gets a considerable service level, rather than be completely dependent on the . This way, it could be 9-10  trains and 18  trains, and the service implications of problems arising in Brooklyn on the  route would not cause a cessation of all service on 2 Av (or 50% of it, which is a significant drop).

Even with  trains running at a much higher frequency than the , the fact that  trains are still stuck at a low frequency service is still bothersome. Broadway and Dekalb are the biggest main issue even if the  were to run with 18 tph because the headways are going to suck.

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed that 19 tph on the  isn’t possible with the current setup. Stillwell already has enough trouble turning the current amount of  trains. It certainly won’t be able to turn eight or nine more. And they can’t turn at Brighton Beach without displacing  service. And the current amount of  service will be insufficient once SAS Phase 2 is operational.  So something’s going to have to change. The easiest - and best -  thing is for the  to be seen to SAS and killing the delay-prone  merge at 34th. It would probably have to be completely, because the  runs roughly 8 tph during the rush. So Astoria would be served exclusively by the . Then swap the  and  ‘s south terminals as you said. 

The Phase 3 split will be harder, because it won’t be possible to run the  and  on just two tracks at acceptable rush hour headways. The MTA’s proposed  split was not well thought out. It will hamper service on the southern part of SAS with just the  there, especially if it’s a 50-50 split. Though I don’t think you can run 14  tph anyway with Stillwell unable to turn that much service, let alone the amount the  runs today. I think 18  tph is good, but you still need another service south of 63rd to make up for the absence of the  there. 

Agreed that the “half crosstown” is exactly that. It’s also a half-assed attempt for the MTA to weasel out of building a Bronx extension by saying Bronx  and  riders can just transfer at 125th. Most won’t, especially if they’re headed farther down the East Side. The line’s tail tracks are planned to end somewhere between 5th and Lenox avenues, where the  and  are, but with no station there, it will be useless for  riders who also have crowded trains entering/leaving The Bronx. I also don’t think a whole lot of Metro-North riders will take advantage of the new connection, which will be in a deep tunnel, which will be far below the elevated Metro-North Station. A Bronx extension would be the right move. 

What service cut on Queens Blvd would there be? Wouldn’t there still be the  and  in Phase 2? In Phase 3/4, we could have the  and a Queens-SAS service that would fill in the extra capacity on the main SAS line south of 63rd Street, so that the  is not handling it alone. 

Was the MTA thinking of having SAS run with 4 tracks or 2 tracks around that time? If it was 4 but then changed to 2, I'm pretty sure we all know why it's that. Is it possible for them to build another tunnel below Phase 1 for them to have some sort of express service with track connections south of 72 St and then running on the same level North of 96 St? It feels like the only way for that to happen because I doubt it would be easy to go and convert Phase 1 into a 4 track line, not just easy, but how expensive it would be. Then there's also the whole design of the SAS that would already be another factor. I doubt the MTA has gone ahead to look at it, but if they did ever come across it by any chance, they should really start to consider Van's plan. The  in his proposal was basically the  which he did point out somewhere in his blog about it, just send the excess Q towards Brighton. The  doesn't need to be run along West End, but if it were, I'd have it run to Bay Parkway with the  running to Coney Island full time and Astoria. The  would cutback to Whitehall and if needed, it can be extended only for rush hour service. The only issue is SAS if they either don't convert it or build new tunnels for express service which would be the . 

I'm not exactly sure what to do with the  at this point since it would basically be an issue along QBL if the MTA is still on board with a Queens-SAS service which they probably are. They should consider on having Phase 3 as a 4 track tunnel with the  continuing further towards Hanover Square while the local terminates at Houston St-2 Av or if they wanted, have it terminate at Chambers St or Canal, I'm pretty sure there is still those tunnels and track bed besides the Nassau St line.

[Mtatransit]

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What service cut on Queens Blvd would there be? Wouldn’t there still be the  and  in Phase 2? In Phase 3/4, we could have the  and a Queens-SAS service that would fill in the extra capacity on the main SAS line south of 63rd Street, so that the  is not handling it alone. 

I was just replying to the suggestion @darkstar8983 made about cutting 50% of the  and rerouting them to 96 Street and adding 50% more  , and switching the  and  to alleviate Delkalb Junction. Doing that will require a service cut on the  due to the layout of Whitehall Terminal

6 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Technically there is room for additional  trains, since the 6 Av Local tracks have room for four additional trains (a more even split of to  trains), and the Jamaica Local / Williamsburg Bridge has room for more trains (maybe even leading to an even split of / trains to  trains). So the  technically could be bumped up to 14 TPH while the  can be cut down to 7 TPH (6 TPH terminating at Whitehall St, and the excess  trains ending at Canal St + relaying at City Hall lower level).

Is there capacity through the 53rd St Tunnel though? Though theorically we could reroute them on the  via 63rd Street

[Jemorie]

13 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Though I don’t think you can run 14  tph anyway with Stillwell unable to turn that much service, let alone the amount the  runs today.

The crossovers just have to be immediately right before Stillwell instead of midway between West 8th and Stillwell. Theoretically, you can run 15  tph (aka 4 minute headways). However, it should only be limited to the “peak of the peak” during rush hours (with off-peak service being reduced to 10 tph (aka 6 minute headways).

Unrelated, but I’ve also read some other past posts in this thread where most agree that the SAS should be extended to the South Bronx with two respective stops at 3rd Avenue-138th Street (with a free transfer to the Pelham Line) and 3rd Avenue-149th Street (with a free transfer to the White Plains Road Line). I also agree too. The current plan to extended SAS to 125th Street-Lexington Avenue is lazy and cheap. I understand the budget crisis, but nowadays, I feel like the  is just being financially irresponsible with how they manage their budget anyways (which is why I don’t really post much nowadays). But you get the picture.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Jemorie

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Is there capacity through the 53rd St Tunnel though? Though theorically we could reroute them on the  via 63rd Street

The and used to run a full 30TPH through 53rd, and that's certainly not the service level today.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Even with  trains running at a much higher frequency than the , the fact that  trains are still stuck at a low frequency service is still bothersome. Broadway and Dekalb are the biggest main issue even if the  were to run with 18 tph because the headways are going to suck.

Was the MTA thinking of having SAS run with 4 tracks or 2 tracks around that time? If it was 4 but then changed to 2, I'm pretty sure we all know why it's that. Is it possible for them to build another tunnel below Phase 1 for them to have some sort of express service with track connections south of 72 St and then running on the same level North of 96 St? It feels like the only way for that to happen because I doubt it would be easy to go and convert Phase 1 into a 4 track line, not just easy, but how expensive it would be. Then there's also the whole design of the SAS that would already be another factor. I doubt the MTA has gone ahead to look at it, but if they did ever come across it by any chance, they should really start to consider Van's plan. The  in his proposal was basically the  which he did point out somewhere in his blog about it, just send the excess Q towards Brighton. The  doesn't need to be run along West End, but if it were, I'd have it run to Bay Parkway with the  running to Coney Island full time and Astoria. The  would cutback to Whitehall and if needed, it can be extended only for rush hour service. The only issue is SAS if they either don't convert it or build new tunnels for express service which would be the . 

I'm not exactly sure what to do with the  at this point since it would basically be an issue along QBL if the MTA is still on board with a Queens-SAS service which they probably are. They should consider on having Phase 3 as a 4 track tunnel with the  continuing further towards Hanover Square while the local terminates at Houston St-2 Av or if they wanted, have it terminate at Chambers St or Canal, I'm pretty sure there is still those tunnels and track bed besides the Nassau St line.

Won’t disagree with you there. But in fairness, 5-minute headways on the  (12 tph) would likely be an improvement over pre-pandemic service, which if I remember correctly was 10 tph. But south of 63rd, you’d have a SAS running at only 60% capacity with just the . So far, I haven’t heard a peep out of the MTA about a Queens SAS service. The maps they have on the SAS-related web pages certainly don’t show it. It would be needed and well-used. And given that the IRT’s 2nd Ave El had one, its long-promised replacement subway should have one too (in addition to a Bronx extension, which the El also had). One option could be to retain the  on QBL, and a Queens-SAS service could replace the  (a turquoise R?). The  would need to be able to either turn more trains at Stillwell or be able to short-turn some trains at Brighton Beach or Ocean Pkwy. But the second option there would likely require the  to be displaced. Straight-railing DeKalb Junction would likely help with being able to run more than 10  tph with the presence of the , but would require rearranging other services in South Brooklyn. And the more  service that runs, the less  service that can be run, which would definitely require a second SAS service south of 63rd Street. 

The SAS was planned as primarily a two-track line for nearly the entire way going back to the late1960s. There were plans to have four tracks between 14th and Houston, but the primary purpose for the two middle tracks there was to store trains. They don’t even have a station planned to go in between 14th and Houston. They really should. 

13 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I was just replying to the suggestion @darkstar8983 made about cutting 50% of the  and rerouting them to 96 Street and adding 50% more  , and switching the  and  to alleviate Delkalb Junction. Doing that will require a service cut on the  due to the layout of Whitehall Terminal

 

They really can’t turn 8 tph of the  at Whitehall? SEPTA is able to turn their Broad-Ridge Spur trains at single-tracked 8th-Market while running 7.5-minute headways (8 tph). If they can do it, then we also should be able to.

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The crossovers just have to be immediately right before Stillwell instead of midway between West 8th and Stillwell. Theoretically, you can run 15  tph (aka 4 minute headways). However, it should only be limited to the “peak of the peak” during rush hours (with off-peak service being reduced to 10 tph (aka 6 minute headways).

Unrelated, but I’ve also read some other past posts in this thread where most agree that the SAS should be extended to the South Bronx with two respective stops at 3rd Avenue-138th Street (with a free transfer to the Pelham Line) and 3rd Avenue-149th Street (with a free transfer to the White Plains Road Line). I also agree too. The current plan to extended SAS to 125th Street-Lexington Avenue is lazy and cheap. I understand the budget crisis, but nowadays, I feel like the  is just being financially irresponsible with how they manage their budget anyways (which is why I don’t really post much nowadays). But you get the picture.

They do, but with a sharp curve right before where the  enters Stillwell, it’s impossible to put a crossover there (the  has the same problem too). The crossover can’t be too close to the curve. 

The sad thing about the MTA’s plan to extend to Lexington-125th is it’s not cheap. And it’s always been the plan to only go that far north, at least coming out of the study they did in the late 1990s that gave us the current four-phase plan, even when their finances were in good shape. Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens extensions were to be evaluated “at a later date.” So it’s the worst of both worlds - lazy AND expensive! 

Edited January 26, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[darkstar8983]

15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Won’t disagree with you there. But in fairness, 5-minute headways on the  (12 tph) would likely be an improvement over pre-pandemic service, which if I remember correctly was 10 tph. But south of 63rd, you’d have a SAS running at only 60% capacity with just the . So far, I haven’t heard a peep out of the MTA about a Queens SAS service. The maps they have on the SAS-related web pages certainly don’t show it. It would be needed and well-used. And given that the IRT’s 2nd Ave El had one, its long-promised replacement subway should have one too (in addition to a Bronx extension, which the El also had). One option could be to retain the  on QBL, and a Queens-SAS service could replace the  (a turquoise R?). The  would need to be able to either turn more trains at Stillwell or be able to short-turn some trains at Brighton Beach or Ocean Pkwy. But the second option there would likely require the  to be displaced. Straight-railing DeKalb Junction would likely help with being able to run more than 10  tph with the presence of the , but would require rearranging other services in South Brooklyn. And the more  service that runs, the less  service that can be run, which would definitely require a second SAS service south of 63rd Street. 

The SAS was planned as primarily a two-track line for nearly the entire way going back to the late1960s. There were plans to have four tracks between 14th and Houston, but the primary purpose for the two middle tracks there was to store trains. They don’t even have a station planned to go in between 14th and Houston. They really should. 

They really can’t turn 8 tph of the  at Whitehall? SEPTA is able to turn their Broad-Ridge Spur trains at single-tracked 8th-Market while running 7.5-minute headways (8 tph). If they can do it, then we also should be able to.

They do, but with a sharp curve right before where the  enters Stillwell, it’s impossible to put a crossover there (the  has the same problem too). The crossover can’t be too close to the curve. 

The sad thing about the MTA’s plan to extend to Lexington-125th is it’s not cheap. And it’s always been the plan to only go that far north, at least coming out of the study they did in the late 1990s that gave us the current four-phase plan, even when their finances were in good shape. Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens extensions were to be evaluated “at a later date.” So it’s the worst of both worlds - lazy AND expensive! 

1. The 2013-2014  train during the Montague Tunnel Closure was scheduled for every 8 minutes in the PM rush, and every 6-7 minutes in the AM rush (the north section) with two or three trains terminating at Canal St in the morning and reversing to 71 Av using the City Hall relay because the curve that Broadway trains take from Rector St to Whitehall St is speed-limiting. Technically the  did run 7 trains per hour out of Whitehall St, but didn't have to contend with a Manhattan-Brooklyn thru service. I think that is the biggest service limitation, because having more than 6TPH terminating at Whitehall St and having thru service delays the latter service. This is part of the reason why the pre-2010  train was so prone to delays. It had two uneven merges. One with the Brown  at 36 St-4 Av to Court St, and then immediately merging with the  at Whitehall St. And don't get me started with the infamous 34 St merge, leading to the final  train merge at Queens Plaza (another uneven merge caused by the necessity to run the  at an even headway to ensure proper merging with the . I think schedules were previously written keeping in mind the necessity to maintain the high-demand subway lines with as even a headway as possible (example, the  ) at the expense of uneven headways on the lighter used routes (example: the   and Brown  ). Now I believe the MTA looks at every route and tries to run as even service as possible so that it benefits routes that have a long stretch of route where it is the solitary service (example, the  south of Whitehall St, the  past Hoyt-Schermerhorn), and leaves routes that have a lot of overlap with a bit more flexibility (example, the , which has the  and  duplicating its entire route).

2. Rebuilding the Stillwell Avenue crossover would require an entire signal system rebuild too because you are moving the location of the crossover, similar to how the  line had its signal / switch system in the vicinity of Woodside-61 St removed and then installed around 74 St-Broadway, to allow for midday construction and weekend construction to force the  to stop at 74 St, rather than bypass it just because of work at, lets say 103 St. It is really invasive and would require a suspension of  service south of Avenue X and the  south of Brighton Beach (possibly  also the  south of Kings Highway) for an extended period of time, since removing track and switches on the upper deck will impede service on the lower deck. It is something that should be looked into though. I can babble on with regards to how many switch layouts past terminals need to be redone because of inefficient terminal operations, but this post will go on forever (example: Jamaica Center on the  and the  , Stillwell Avenue on the  side)

[RR503]

On 1/26/2021 at 3:04 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

They really can’t turn 8 tph of the  at Whitehall? SEPTA is able to turn their Broad-Ridge Spur trains at single-tracked 8th-Market while running 7.5-minute headways (8 tph). If they can do it, then we also should be able to.

Normatively, we should be able to turn up to 15 tph on a single pocket -- HY does 29 on two, after all. However, the slow entrance speeds at Whitehall + the inconvenience of the narrow platforms for crew movements + the operations risk that comes with a single point of failure on that high frequency of a pipeline means we don't and probably shouldn't. The , fwiw, maxes out at 6tph turning. Some of that is a function of upstream scheduling constraints that make it impossible to take turn headways down from, say, 10 to 8, but some of it is just the limitations of the operation there. And even now, that terminal operation sucks. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by RR503

[Around the Horn]

On the subject of turning at Whitehall, do we have data from when the turned there on weekdays during the Montague closure? I don't recall any service cuts on the Whitehall-Forest Hills section to accommodate the terminal constraints...

[darkstar8983]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

On the subject of turning at Whitehall, do we have data from when the turned there on weekdays during the Montague closure? I don't recall any service cuts on the Whitehall-Forest Hills section to accommodate the terminal constraints...

There were. The  ran every 6-7 minutes in the morning but three trains between 7:30AM and 9:30AM had to end at Canal St to accommodate the limited turning capacity of Whitehall St. In the afternoon, to make sure all  trains went to Whitehall St, headways were every 8-10 minutes, instead of every 6-7 minutes

[R10 2952]

10 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

There were. The  ran every 6-7 minutes in the morning but three trains between 7:30AM and 9:30AM had to end at Canal St to accommodate the limited turning capacity of Whitehall St. In the afternoon, to make sure all  trains went to Whitehall St, headways were every 8-10 minutes, instead of every 6-7 minutes

Yeah, the short-turns at Canal have existed for many years if memory serves me correctly; I reckon if they simply finished the lower level at City Hall, they could send trains there instead of Whitehall- three tracks, two platforms, less interference with trains to/from Brooklyn.  Would make more sense than getting rid of the  outright (don't know when exactly that idea came up, put people on here keep talking about it).

Only other option I see would be to end Broadway service through the Montague tubes and send the  to Bay Ridge, but I can't imagine such a service being too popular outside of rush hours.  Not to mention Broad Street has the same problem as Whitehall- one train terminating in the path of another coming into and out of Montague.

Seems like a lose-lose situation either way.

Edited February 19, 2021 by R10 2952

[darkstar8983]

On 2/19/2021 at 2:18 PM, R10 2952 said:

Yeah, the short-turns at Canal have existed for many years if memory serves me correctly; I reckon if they simply finished the lower level at City Hall, they could send trains there instead of Whitehall- three tracks, two platforms, less interference with trains to/from Brooklyn.  Would make more sense than getting rid of the  outright (don't know when exactly that idea came up, put people on here keep talking about it).

Only other option I see would be to end Broadway service through the Montague tubes and send the  to Bay Ridge, but I can't imagine such a service being too popular outside of rush hours.  Not to mention Broad Street has the same problem as Whitehall- one train terminating in the path of another coming into and out of Montague.

Seems like a lose-lose situation either way.

1. Yes you are correct about the Canal St short-turns existing for many years...since 1988 actually, since the Manhattan Bridge South Tracks were closed & the Broadway Line was reduced to just the  &  trains. The Montague Tunnel carried the <M>  train rush hours to /from Bay Parkway, taking away six of the rush hour slots in the tunnel from the , reducing the number of trains that could operate south of Whitehall St on these two routes to only 18-20 TPH rush hours. Since Whitehall St had only one center track to turn trains around, the excess  trains from 71 Av terminated there, while the excess  trains from Astoria ended at Canal St. 24 TPH (evenly split between Astoria and Queens Blvd) ran north of Canal St, reduced to 22 TPH between Canal and Whitehall St, and 20 TPH combined further into Brooklyn. 

2. Finishing the lower level of City Hall now would not help the lower manhattan ridership and ridership from the Staten Island Ferry, which would now have to pile onto the  if the  ended at Canal St rather than Whitehall St (or switch to using the  train. You would still have an  / train merge in Lower Manhattan.

3. The <M> to south brooklyn would just carry air past Atlantic Av-Barclays Center and DeKalb Av because the Nassau St Line doesn't go to Midtown, forcing another transfer at Fulton St, Canal St, Chambers St, or Essex St for points north. Passengers would jump ship otherwise at the 4 Av Express stops (59 St or 36 St) to the and , similar to when the  train tunnel was closed in 2013-2014

 

*Note: Can someone show me how to make the Brown  Logo

Edited February 21, 2021 by darkstar8983

[Storm]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

*Note: Can someone show me how to make the Brown  Logo

(brown M) without the space. .

 

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

Note: Can someone show me how to make the Brown  Logo

Put “brownM” in between parentheses and done:

(brownM) 

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

2. Finishing the lower level of City Hall now would not help the lower manhattan ridership and ridership from the Staten Island Ferry, which would now have to pile onto the  if the  ended at Canal St rather than Whitehall St (or switch to using the  train. You would still have an  / train merge in Lower Manhattan.

Do you think it’d be feasible to reconstruct the Lower Level of City hall to then connect it with the Tracks at Cortlandt in an effort to widen the cure and speed up service in that area?

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Do you think it’d be feasible to reconstruct the Lower Level of City hall to then connect it with the Tracks at Cortlandt in an effort to widen the cure and speed up service in that area?

That was the original plan. The upper level was going to be the terminus.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

1. Yes you are correct about the Canal St short-turns existing for many years...since 1988 actually, since the Manhattan Bridge South Tracks were closed & the Broadway Line was reduced to just the  &  trains. The Montague Tunnel carried the <M>  train rush hours to /from Bay Parkway, taking away six of the rush hour slots in the tunnel from the , reducing the number of trains that could operate south of Whitehall St on these two routes to only 18-20 TPH rush hours. Since Whitehall St had only one center track to turn trains around, the excess  trains from 71 Av terminated there, while the excess  trains from Astoria ended at Canal St. 24 TPH (evenly split between Astoria and Queens Blvd) ran north of Canal St, reduced to 22 TPH between Canal and Whitehall St, and 20 TPH combined further into Brooklyn. 

2. Finishing the lower level of City Hall now would not help the lower manhattan ridership and ridership from the Staten Island Ferry, which would now have to pile onto the  if the  ended at Canal St rather than Whitehall St (or switch to using the  train. You would still have an  / train merge in Lower Manhattan.

3. The <M> to south brooklyn would just carry air past Atlantic Av-Barclays Center and DeKalb Av because the Nassau St Line doesn't go to Midtown, forcing another transfer at Fulton St, Canal St, Chambers St, or Essex St for points north. Passengers would jump ship otherwise at the 4 Av Express stops (59 St or 36 St) to the and , similar to when the  train tunnel was closed in 2013-2014

 

*Note: Can someone show me how to make the Brown  Logo

But don’t 4 Av passengers already jump ship now, given that the  and  go to Midtown much faster than the ? I can’t imagine it’s a huge number of riders who stay on the  after Atlantic for Midtown.

Definitely there’s a strong case to be made that a Nassau St service’s disadvantages would be shorter trains and that it would only serve Lower Manhattan, whereas the  at least serves the Flatiron District, so there isn’t much time save by changing to  in Brooklyn - though I imagine some probably do and then change back to the  at 14th or just walk to/from Union Sq using the 17th St exit. But the Nassau Line does have more transfers than Lower Broadway and it is closer to the Water St office buildings’ corridor, so there’s that.

[Caelestor]

We shouldn't be terminating trains at City Hall, right outside the high-ridership Financial District. Just continue to turn the 6-7 tph at Whitehall St, and run the excess trains to Bay Ridge. The  doesn't lack destinations and there's ridership to be induced with frequency increases.

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But don’t 4 Av passengers already jump ship now, given that the  and  go to Midtown much faster than the ? I can’t imagine it’s a huge number of riders who stay on the  after Atlantic for Midtown.

Definitely there’s a strong case to be made that a Nassau St service’s disadvantages would be shorter trains and that it would only serve Lower Manhattan, whereas the  at least serves the Flatiron District, so there isn’t much time save by changing to  in Brooklyn - though I imagine some probably do and then change back to the  at 14th or just walk to/from Union Sq using the 17th St exit. But the Nassau Line does have more transfers than Lower Broadway and it is closer to the Water St office buildings’ corridor, so there’s that.

The  does a good job reducing crowding on the IRT lines between Fulton St and Atlantic Ave, but it makes too many slow turns through lower Manhattan to be an effective Midtown - Downtown - Brooklyn trunk line. Due to its lack of curves, Nassau St is actually the second best trunk line through lower Manhattan after Lex Ave, but its crippling flaw is that it doesn't serve any part of Midtown. The line could be well-patronized if it could be rerouted up 2 Ave or Bowery / 3 Ave, but that would require the line to be shut down and reconstructed with ten-car platforms and a deep tunnel north of Canal Street (which I'm not certain is technically feasible).

[R10 2952]

2 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Due to its lack of curves, Nassau St is actually the second best trunk line through lower Manhattan after Lex Ave, but its crippling flaw is that it doesn't serve any part of Midtown. The line could be well-patronized if it could be rerouted up 2 Ave or Bowery / 3 Ave, but that would require the line to be shut down and reconstructed with ten-car platforms and a deep tunnel north of Canal Street (which I'm not certain is technically feasible).

To me, the cardinal flaw of the Nassau Line was the BMT building it way too close to the IRT; had it turned south at Allen or Christie Streets instead, I suspect that SAS Phase 4 wouldn't even be a thing.

[Vulturious]

10 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

To me, the cardinal flaw of the Nassau Line was the BMT building it way too close to the IRT; had it turned south at Allen or Christie Streets instead, I suspect that SAS Phase 4 wouldn't even be a thing.

If that's the case, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to change their mind once finishing or half way through Phase 3 that they decided to have Phase 4 basically connect with Nassau.