#7 to NJ or lower manhattan.

[bobtehpanda]

 

 

Well, forest Hills would be eliminated by running through 63rd and keeping it on the express (Hence, why I switched the routes as I did). 

So the only merger then would be with Astoria. That could be worked out somehow, as it would have to if they ever did decide to replace the steinway tubes (which was something once planned).

 

The original idea was to eliminate the isolated piece of IRT and integrate it with the BMT it's directly connected with, plus it would also of course add much useful capacity. (Again, it's not for through riders, though it would benefit those willing to go around the long way because they prefer one seat to transferring).

 

Don't know when or of it would ever be seen as feasible, but it is just an idea.

 

 

Keep in mind that not all of the subway plans devised in the '40s make sense today; there is no need for a South 4th St six-track trunk line, for instance.

 

Again, at the frequency the runs, it would have to be the only train line in the tunnels.

 

I'd like to point out that putting the through the 60th St tubes would render a whole new car fleet and train signalling technology obsolete. It's not feasible, it's never going to be feasible, and quite frankly the is fine as it is.

 

(Also, moving the to 63rd is not doable - what it does now is mostly a straight shot without complex switching from Bay Ridge to Forest Hills, but a 63rd route would require switching to the Broadway express tracks, onto the 63rd St line, and back out onto the QBL local.)

 

 

Why on Earth did they go with two incompatible CBTC systems for the and ? Wouldn't it be easier and more cost-effective to have just one CBTC system that uses the same parts and software. Never mind linking the L and 7 into one line, it still doesn't make very much sense to have two completely different CBTC systems.

 

Right, it does. Now. But I think ESA and a Queens-to-SAS service might help somewhat to relieve the crowding on the . Run extra trains to/from Bayside via Port Washington Branch and the ESA tunnels to Grand Central and charge City Ticket prices.

 

There's also the upcoming Midtown East rezoning. If that officially goes through, they should include building part of SAS Phase 3 - at least to 34th St. By doing that, they can run a ( V ) service from Queens to the SAS via the 63rd St tunnel and Queens Blvd local. It won't be able to run 15 tph because of the and , but there is spare capacity on those local tracks and Queens Blvd is next in line to get CBTC signalling after the gets its new signals.

 

1. When CBTC was first introduced into the system, it was mostly proprietary and vendor-locked, with a few inoperable systems being sold by manufacturers. (Heck, for the most part, it still is.) As far as I know, the MTA is the first organization to attempt to create an open CBTC standard; for the L and 7 to use similar systems way back when would've required the MTA to go whole hog on one supplier. Had they done this, it would have been terrible and expensive; the MTA's first attempt with the Siemens Meteor system took much longer than it should've, was much more expensive than originally anticipated, and ended up with trains overrunning stations in passenger service on the during the first couple weeks.

 

2. ESA adds 24TPH, which the LIRR is going to have to spread around on every branch. Second of all, with LIRR's ridiculously high operating costs, you would be asking them to dilute the profits they're receiving on their most utilized line, and this is not workable when they have to cross-subsidize the runs out to Montauk and Greenport.

 

Also, I have qualms about adding a local service in addition to express service on 63rd St; that just leads to an opportunity for more delay knockback, which is already pretty bad on the QBL and affected lines.

[AndrewJC]

The original idea was to eliminate the isolated piece of IRT and integrate it with the BMT it's directly connected with, plus it would also of course add much useful capacity. (Again, it's not for through riders, though it would benefit those willing to go around the long way because they prefer one seat to transferring).

 

Don't know when or of it would ever be seen as feasible, but it is just an idea.

 

How would it add capacity? The capacity of an 11 car IRT train is 4% greater than the capacity of an 8 car BMT train. (Not that you'd need much capacity after forcing a large portion of the ridership to move elsewhere during the construction phase, since they wouldn't be able to fit on the trains anymore.)

 

It's an idea, but not all ideas are good ideas.

 

Why on Earth did they go with two incompatible CBTC systems for the and ? Wouldn't it be easier and more cost-effective to have just one CBTC system that uses the same parts and software. Never mind linking the L and 7 into one line, it still doesn't make very much sense to have two completely different CBTC systems.

 

bobtehpanda covered most of this, but I'll just add that the uniform NYCT standard for CBTC is still being developed. The first line to use it will be the QBL. Since most subway systems have largely independent lines, it's not a big deal if the various CBTC systems are incompatible.

[Eric B]

Keep in mind that not all of the subway plans devised in the '40s make sense today; there is no need for a South 4th St six-track trunk line, for instance.

 

Again, at the frequency the runs, it would have to be the only train line in the tunnels.

 

I'd like to point out that putting the through the 60th St tubes would render a whole new car fleet and train signalling technology obsolete. It's not feasible, it's never going to be feasible, and quite frankly the is fine as it is.

 

(Also, moving the to 63rd is not doable - what it does now is mostly a straight shot without complex switching from Bay Ridge to Forest Hills, but a 63rd route would require switching to the Broadway express tracks, onto the 63rd St line, and back out onto the QBL local.)

Isn't it possible for part of the line to be CBTC? When they do Queens Blvd, won't the four lines that run it have to switch it off when they enter the nonCBTC tracks?

 

If they were to do this, they would have to reduce it for the time being.

 

Also, I switched it so that it wouldn't be the through 63rd, but the (They would switch back for the time being). 

 

How would it add capacity? The capacity of an 11 car IRT train is 4% greater than the capacity of an 8 car BMT train. (Not that you'd need much capacity after forcing a large portion of the ridership to move elsewhere during the construction phase, since they wouldn't be able to fit on the trains anymore.)

 

It's an idea, but not all ideas are good ideas.

Forgot about that. But really, if they were smart, they would eventually extend it to 10 cars, which in this case would greatly enhance both lines.

[bobtehpanda]

Isn't it possible for part of the line to be CBTC? When they do Queens Blvd, won't the four lines that run it have to switch it off when they enter the nonCBTC tracks?

 

If they were to do this, they would have to reduce it for the time being.

 

Also, I switched it so that it wouldn't be the through 63rd, but the (They would switch back for the time being). 

 

Forgot about that. But really, if they were smart, they would eventually extend it to 10 cars, which in this case would greatly enhance both lines.

 

The has its own proprietary CBTC system. Unless you wanted a specific B Division car class to have specific CBTC, it would have to be converted to wayside operations yet again. (This also brings up the question of where the hell you would dump all those IRT cars and acquire all those B Division cars; the has an entire brand new fleet being purchased, and it would be a waste to talk about dumping them before they even start service)

 

Again, it will never, ever be possible for the to have its headways cut. The can barely handle the peak ridership as it is today, and the trains will still be full once CBTC comes online and service is increased. An unneeded service cut such as this would depress long-term ridership to the point where you probably would never need the little capacity that BMT cars would offer. More importantly, this is the fastest way for the MTA to lose all public support, since it doesn't rationally make sense to cut service to a crowded subway line that sees consistent gains in ridership year after year. Politicians would feast on the bone that they were just thrown.

[Vistausss]

@bob: LIRR asking city ticket prices is not that unfeasible. You may talk about "high operating costs" and stuff but MNRR is subject to the same things as LIRR yet they do charge city ticket prices in the city ticket area.

[Eric B]

The has its own proprietary CBTC system. Unless you wanted a specific B Division car class to have specific CBTC, it would have to be converted to wayside operations yet again. (This also brings up the question of where the hell you would dump all those IRT cars and acquire all those B Division cars; the has an entire brand new fleet being purchased, and it would be a waste to talk about dumping them before they even start service)

 

Again, it will never, ever be possible for the to have its headways cut. The can barely handle the peak ridership as it is today, and the trains will still be full once CBTC comes online and service is increased. An unneeded service cut such as this would depress long-term ridership to the point where you probably would never need the little capacity that BMT cars would offer. More importantly, this is the fastest way for the MTA to lose all public support, since it doesn't rationally make sense to cut service to a crowded subway line that sees consistent gains in ridership year after year. Politicians would feast on the bone that they were just thrown.

If anything like this were ever done, it would be so far down the line, both the cars and the CBTC system would probably be up for replacement anyway.