NYC's subway really is unique in comparison to the ones elsewhere.

[CenSin]

The more travelling I've done, the more I seem to appreciate NYC's existing subway system. Las Vegas, for example, has one hell of a useless monorail that can't even be called mass transportation.

 

So a lot of people have bemoaned the loss of a third track at 2 Avenue and 72 Street and the fact that pretty much all new subway construction will be double-tracked due to cost considerations. But after looking through track maps of different metros in the US and abroad, I've come to the conclusion that anything more has always been the exception and not the rule. Far more metro systems around the world are predominantly double-tracked, and most lack the luxury of extra tracks to orchestrate merging or redundant tracks for reroutes like the NYC subway does. And more likely than not, where a metro features interlining, the junctions are exactly like that at the 2 Avenue 72 Street station being built now.

 

Here are links to track maps of various metros for reference:

• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
  I must say that after my stay in San Francisco last month, the BART is very fast (even on crossover switches). The stations are spaced much farther apart outside the city (about a mile to 2 miles), and within the city the stations are about as far apart as those on the 2 Avenue line. The noise level is much louder though, and the entire system sounds like the Lexington Avenue line's express tracks at Canal Street right now.
• Washington Metro
  Trains here are also extremely fast, save for the longer station dwell times. There are only 2 triple-tracked stations in the entire system, and one of them (National Airport) can't be used for turning trains now that two switches have been removed from service; the other one is for short-turning trains and/or yard access.
• Boston Metro
  I can't say too much about the Boston Metro since I've only taken it between two stations to transfer between two Amtrak stations, but the ride was fairly quick. A look at the track map shows that while the Boston Metro is double-tracked for the most part, it has some triple-tracked sections (designed similarly to those in the BART), and makes use of more tracks at junction stations to hold merging trains.
• Los Angeles Metro
  I'll be visiting this city some time next year to see what it's like.
• Chicago 'L'
  I'll be visiting this city some time next year to see what it's like.
• I've got nothing on the Philadelphia subway system yet, though its Broad Street line is said to be quadruple-tracked for a respectable length, spanning 15 stations.

[Kamen Rider]

I know a slightly more up to date LA track map.

http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-losangeles/

 

(Found this site http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/ a long time ago and they link to the first site's tube map)

 

The CTA map has a few mistakes (yes, I know it's 20 years old but it was wrong then). It shows Central and California on the Congress branch as being open, even though they'd closed with Kostner in 1973 and neither Wikipedia or L.org show them as ever reopening.

[bobtehpanda]

Most metros just flat out don't have interlining, simply because it's easier to push more throughput and signal a completely separated line with its own separated depot and what have you.

 

The main reason most places don't have four-tracking is cost and practicality. In New York, most people are trying to head to a business district that is half a mile wide, which means you have to shove a lot of track into a lot of area, and for practical purposes its simpler to bundle these tracks together. Most cities are not this geographically constrained, so then the choice is this: do I want to shove 20 miles of four-track down the same corridor, or build two 10-mile sections of two track and serve more people? The latter is pretty much always chosen. If capacity becomes an issue, then there might be a second express network overlaid on top (like the Paris RER), but express tracks are not super-practical, especially since modern subways are not built with the super-tight spacing of the original IRT or the Paris Metro.

[CenSin]

I know a slightly more up to date LA track map.

http://carto.metro.free.fr/cartes/metro-tram-losangeles/

 

(Found this site http://www.abandonedstations.org.uk/ a long time ago and they link to the first site's tube map)

 

The CTA map has a few mistakes (yes, I know it's 20 years old but it was wrong then). It shows Central and California on the Congress branch as being open, even though they'd closed with Kostner in 1973 and neither Wikipedia or L.org show them as ever reopening.

Nice find! I might have bumped into it before, but never found it again in later searches.

 

 

Most metros just flat out don't have interlining, simply because it's easier to push more throughput and signal a completely separated line with its own separated depot and what have you.

 

The main reason most places don't have four-tracking is cost and practicality. In New York, most people are trying to head to a business district that is half a mile wide, which means you have to shove a lot of track into a lot of area, and for practical purposes its simpler to bundle these tracks together. Most cities are not this geographically constrained, so then the choice is this: do I want to shove 20 miles of four-track down the same corridor, or build two 10-mile sections of two track and serve more people? The latter is pretty much always chosen. If capacity becomes an issue, then there might be a second express network overlaid on top (like the Paris RER), but express tracks are not super-practical, especially since modern subways are not built with the super-tight spacing of the original IRT or the Paris Metro.

Considering your logic, this might also make sense in New York City too. The IND could have made transportation better by building two separate double-tracked trunks blocks apart with less stations along each pair of tracks where it would have otherwise built a quadruple-tracked trunk with stations spaced closer together. Time would be saved by stopping at less stations along the way, more area is covered by lines, and thus, less walking distance to any station. To retain the flexibility of rerouting through congestion, accidents, and construction, however, at some point, two pairs of tracks would have to form a sort of macro-diamond crossover between the two lines (kind of like how 6 Avenue can be reached via 63 Street or 53 Street, and how Broadway can be reached via 63 Street or 59 Street, but without the intervening stations).

[peacemak3r]

Las Vegas' monorails weren't even meant to be for mass transportation. Those monorails are shuttles between casinos of the same branch/owners.

 

Quite frankly, I've become quite fond of London's subways and commuter rails in comparison to NYC's. I guess TS2014/5 had a big help on that one.

[engineerboy6561]

I can provide a bit more information on the Boston network; the Blue Line is double-tracked from start to finish, while the Red Line has a very short four-track stretch, the Orange Line has three tracks (but only two in service) north of North Station, and the Green Line is... complicated.

 

The Red Line runs from Alewife station on the Cambridge-Arlington border down to either Ashmont (in the Dorchester neighborhood near the Boston-Milton border) or Braintree (in the eponymous town 5-7 miles south of the Boston city line); the two branches split just north of the JFK/UMass station.

 

There's a brief four-track segment from JFK/UMass to a ways past Savin Hill; however, it's not set up like any of the NYC four-track stations are. After the tracks split, the southbound Braintree branch track crosses over the northbound Ashmont Branch track; the island platform nearest the commuter rail platform is served by Braintree-bound trains in both directions, while the other island platform is served by Ashmont-bound trains in both directions.

 

From JFK-UMass on the Red Line and the Middleborough/Lakeville commuter rail line run together in a five-track configuration; the commuter rail track crosses under the Braintree branch tracks, and runs in the center of the configuration as far as Savin Hill. Savin Hill is served by the Ashmont branch only (an island platform between the two Ashmont Branch tracks), and south of the station the Ashmont tracks turn sharply west to serve the remaining Dorchester stops. Other than that segment, the rest of the Red Line is double-tracked.

 

The Orange Line runs from Oak Grove in Malden down through Medford and Somerville before serving Downtown Boston and running down the Southwest Corridor Park to Forest Hills in the eponymous neighborhood of Boston. From Forest Hills to North Station the line runs double tracked (much of that distance in a massive open cut alongside three Amtrak/MBCR tracks; the Orange Line runs alongside the commuter rail tracks in a semi-separate ROW). From Community College to Oak Grove, the line has three tracks, but only the leftmost two are in use as rapid transit tracks.

 

The rightmost track was intended to be used by express trains to Reading following the planned conversion of the Haverhill commuter rail line to rapid transit south of Reading. The town of Melrose objected, primarily (I believe) due to worries about losing major crosstown streets to grade crossing removal, and the extension got cu back to Oak Grove. The third track is currently unused from just south of Community College (where the line becomes two tracks) to north of the Wellington Yards; from the Wellington Yards to Oak Grove it carries Haverhill Line commuter rail trains.

 

The Blue Line runs from Wonderland station (named after a long-demolished amusement park) near the southern end of Revere Beach down through southern Revere, East Boston, and downtown Boston. It's double tracked for its entire length, with conventional tail tracks on the north end at Wonderland and an Old South Ferry-style reversing loop on the south end at Bowdoin; the station is a wedge-shaped island platform with the wide end leading directly to the turnaround loop.

 

The Green Line is a separate network of four light rail lines (designated B, C, D, and E) that all fan out from the downtown Boston area. Two of them terminate at Government Center (currently shortened to Park St due to ongoing renovations at Government Center that necessitated station closure), one continues on to North Station, and the fourth continues two stops further to Lechmere in east Cambridge. Each of the individual lines is two tracks (with the exception of most terminal stations; other than Cleveland Circle on the C branch, Green Line termini all have storage tracks and reversing loops), as is most of the main line.

 

Even though all of the in-service ROW between stations is double-tracked, several downtown stations (namely Park St, Boylston and Kenmore) have two island platforms and four tracks. Trains enter and leave Park St via a two-track mainline, while switches just before and after the platform allow the mainline to expand to four tracks to allow for up to eight Green Line trains to platform at once. Boylston only uses the inner two tracks on the mainline, and uses the island platforms as side platforms; the outer tracks used to connect to streetcar services to South Boston but are currently not in revenue service. Kenmore is another station where the two-track mainline fans out to four; the outer two tracks go due west and connect to the ROW down the center of Commonwealth Av (serving the B line) while the inner two carry the C and D lines southwest toward the Beacon St ROW and old Highland Branch ROW, respectively.

 

Actually, given how crowded and tiny Boston's downtown is (and given how thoroughly overcrowded and congested most of the subway lines get during rush hour), there are a few places where I think a four-track local-express setup would actually do the MBTA a lot of good, especially with the Green Line extension due to open in 3-5 years.

[engineerboy6561]

Accidental double post

[bobtehpanda]

Nice find! I might have bumped into it before, but never found it again in later searches.

 

Considering your logic, this might also make sense in New York City too. The IND could have made transportation better by building two separate double-tracked trunks blocks apart with less stations along each pair of tracks where it would have otherwise built a quadruple-tracked trunk with stations spaced closer together. Time would be saved by stopping at less stations along the way, more area is covered by lines, and thus, less walking distance to any station. To retain the flexibility of rerouting through congestion, accidents, and construction, however, at some point, two pairs of tracks would have to form a sort of macro-diamond crossover between the two lines (kind of like how 6 Avenue can be reached via 63 Street or 53 Street, and how Broadway can be reached via 63 Street or 59 Street, but without the intervening stations).

 

It would've, had the subway been built say, during the '40s and '50s instead of the 1900s. At that point, they were competing with the els, which did have expresses, and the streetcars for passengers.

 

It was also more of a political issue in New York; the first subway took 20 years because rich residents of Broadway were trying to kill the idea of a subway, and the avenues with the most destinations couldn't be tunneled under for political reasons (Fifth, Madison, and Park).

[Xfer2Nowhere]

The closest I can think of to this in any other city I've seen is the shared tunnel under the Schuylkill River and Market Street in Philadelphia on the Market-Frankford and trolley lines. Stations on the MFL in Center City are normally spaced about 3 blocks apart except for 30th and 15th, where the MFL forms the middle two tracks of a four-track line that crosses the the river and skips two stations (22nd and 19th) only used by the trolleys. Other than that, pretty much everything else does not have the three to four track density NYC does.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Philadelphia's Broad St line is also quad-tracked from Olney to Walnut-Locust stations. Chicago's North Side 'L' (Red and Purple lines) is also quad-tracked, but not underground and the Purple Line express tracks are the outside tracks (unlike NYC where the express tracks are usually the center tracks).

[bobtehpanda]

Philadelphia's Broad St line is also quad-tracked from Olney to Walnut-Locust stations. Chicago's North Side 'L' (Red and Purple lines) is also quad-tracked, but not underground and the Purple Line express tracks are the outside tracks (unlike NYC where the express tracks are usually the center tracks).

 

In the case of the Chicago North Side El, one of the options for its rehab is actually a two-track subway replacement, which wouldn't actually add a lot of time due to farther station spacing and more exits/entrances at stations.

[Q113 LTD]

Each city has different subway design. When you look at California for example, Los Angeles, they do not have elevated rail lines because California is in a earthquake zone.  I love the way NYC subway system look. Love when two trains leave the station at the same time, seeing express and local trains racing each other, side by side. I also notice that when trains are underground, they go really fast, but when they are above ground(from subway to el), they do not go as fast. I am assume thats because elevated trestle can not handle the stress of the high speed and the trestle may sway. When underground, the tracks are screw tight to the floor and they can go as fast, but over time, the tracks will overheat. Now for other metro subways around the world, I like London Underground. The last time I went there was back in 2011. I do like Japan & China subway system and the way the subway cars look. I watch them on youtube, even though I never been their before, so I guess that do not count unless I experience it. Paris is "ok:. Some lines uses rubber tires. That sounds scary because what if the wheels burst? Also, since some cities like Chicago do not have 4 tracks, do they just have "skip-stops" like the ?

[PATCOman]

Philadelphia's Market Frankford Line has a skip stop only during rush hours (labeled "A" and "B").

[N6 Limited]

One thing to note also is that some other cities have faster trains than NYC, like the DC Metro can get up to 70mph.

[Sparen of Iria]

Technically, some NYC subway cars can go pretty fast, but isn't it more restrictions due to elevated structures and many stops than anything else? In DC, everything is underground, at grade, or on a concrete viaduct, and the distance between stations is, on average, far greater than it is here.

[bobtehpanda]

Technically, some NYC subway cars can go pretty fast, but isn't it more restrictions due to elevated structures and many stops than anything else? In DC, everything is underground, at grade, or on a concrete viaduct, and the distance between stations is, on average, far greater than it is here.

 

We have more stops, but at one point express runs were very fast. However, after the infrastructure deteriorated in the '70s and various crashes occurred, it was decided to be in the best interest to limit system speeds to a maximum of about 55MPH.

[CenSin]

it was decided to be in the best interest to limit system speeds to a maximum of about 55MPH.

And once limits are set, it's rare to see them lifted. It's like your rights as an American citizen. They've been slowly eroded away.

[WMATA]

One thing to note also is that some other cities have faster trains than NYC, like the DC Metro can get up to 70mph.

They can, but not during revenue service. The maximum operating speed in revenue service is 55 MPH, just like in NYC.