Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

@bobtehpanda, @U-BahnNYC, and @RR503, is it physically possible to reconstruct Rockaway Blvd on the  into having two island platforms instead of the current two side platforms?

This would have made it easier for overnight shuttle trains from Lefferts Blvd and seasonal shuttle trains from Rockaway Park to turn on the middle track all without fumigating and relaying.

You certainly _could_ do it, I just don’t think it’s worth the investment. You’re fixing an issue that’s only present for a few months of the year and could be largely mitigated by just improving ops practices w/r/t relays.

Now, if this is a part of a larger plan to realign the middle track of the Lefferts El to feed the express tracks at Euclid instead of Pitkin so you can run  to Lefferts deinterlined in the peak direction, I’m all ears...

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

You certainly _could_ do it, I just don’t think it’s worth the investment.

Three track local stations that should be converted to express stations are Cypress Hills and Woodhaven Blvd (with the traveling non stop on a new El over Jamaica Avenue and then express via the middle track provision)

[SubwayFan3000]

I want NYC Subway Lines to be Long as F**k, look at China they making Subway Lines Long.

Same
from Paterson-Market St to Cambria Heights-234th St or Perhaps JFK Airport.
from WTC to Queens Village-Springfield Blvd

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Bellerose/Floral Park-Little Neck Pkwy
Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Floral Park-263rd St, Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Ave

from Fort Hamilton-92nd St to Oakland Gardens-Bay Blvd

from Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to UWS-72nd St

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Little Neck-Little Neck Pkwy
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Bay Ridge-95th Street to Floral Park-263rd St, From Bay Ridge-95th Street to Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd (Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd to Floral Park-263rd St)
from Tottenville-Craig Ave to College Point-7th Ave

from Hanover Sq to Whitestone-7th Ave
from Cambria Heights-234th Street to Broadway-125th Street
from JFK Airport or Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck-Harding Ave

from Red Hook-Bay St to Yonkers-Prospect St
from Wakefield-241st to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
from East NY-Flatlands Ave to Moshulu Pkwy-Van Cortland Park

from Woodlawn to Floyd Bennett Field
from Eastchester-Dyre Ave to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
Same or from Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Co-Op City, Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Newark Liberty Airport

from Little Neck-Marathon Pkwy to Elizabeth-Grand St

Edited December 18, 2019 by subwayfan1998

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Three track local stations that should be converted to express stations are Cypress Hills and Woodhaven Blvd (with the traveling non stop on a new El over Jamaica Avenue and then express via the middle track provision)

I'm still skeptical that, politically speaking, one can build a new el without any stops to provide community benefit...

Also, Crescent is a legit activity center! Would be curious to know what could be achieved at the curves there w/ better superelevation and CBTC to address the constraints of fixed block control over curves. 

[Jemorie]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:
Now, if this is a part of a larger plan to realign the middle track of the Lefferts El to feed the express tracks at Euclid instead of Pitkin so you can run  to Lefferts deinterlined in the peak direction, I’m all ears...

I don’t agree with this. Riders on the Liberty El already have an express service to/from Manhattan, and the headways are more or less 10-12 minutes rush hours, and 15-20 minutes all other times.

[RR503]

14 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

I don’t agree with this. Riders on the Liberty El already have an express service to/from Manhattan, and the headways are more or less 10-12 minutes rush hours, and 15-20 minutes all other times.

Those are really bad headways! The 's branches don't qualify as frequent transit, to say nothing of the fact that they are egregiously in violation of MTA service guidelines (not that those really are adhered to anyway). Thanks to the complexity of  branching and the complexities inherent in end-of-day layup patterns, there actually are considerable periods in evenings throughout the week where headways on both  branches go and stay above 20 minutes -- 24-30 min headways aren't uncommon. 

This merits a fix, and as it so happens this proposed fix could chip away at long commutes from the Rockaways. I say worth a look. 

[Around the Horn]

28 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I'm still skeptical that, politically speaking, one can build a new el without any stops to provide community benefit...

Also, Crescent is a legit activity center! Would be curious to know what could be achieved at the curves there w/ better superelevation and CBTC to address the constraints of fixed block control over curves. 

The problem with Crescent Street is that they've built around the curve to such a degree that you can't make it any less sharp without demolishing buildings

[Jemorie]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Those are really bad headways! The 's branches don't qualify as frequent transit, to say nothing of the fact that they are egregiously in violation of MTA service guidelines (not that those really are adhered to anyway). Thanks to the complexity of  branching and the complexities inherent in end-of-day layup patterns, there actually are considerable periods in evenings throughout the week where headways on both  branches go and stay above 20 minutes -- 24-30 min headways aren't uncommon. 

This merits a fix, and as it so happens this proposed fix could chip away at long commutes from the Rockaways. I say worth a look. 

The only reason why the  is set up the way it is east of Rockaway Blvd is because of these rumors of “politicians” coming into play from the Lefferts Blvd Branch about through express service to Manhattan vs local service and then changing for express. Not that I’m saying we can’t stand up for the  to Lefferts though and believe me, I’m in favor for a  permanent extension to Lefferts. I just don’t see why it should be peak direction only.

As for as my earlier proposal, I see what you’re saying. It’s just Rockaway Blvd is an all honestly a bad terminal for seasonal shuttle trains from Rockaway Park. Northbound, they arrive shortly before an  from Far Rockaway. Southbound, they arrive shortly after an  to Far Rockaway. Just like they would at Broad Channel. So the seasonal extension is, well, sorta pointless. Because Aqueduct, North Conduit, Howard Beach, Broad Channel, and Rockaway Beach goers still experience lengthy commutes. Instead of trains coming evenly apart (10 minutes) between Rockaway Blvd and Hammels Wyes, trains were still often coming back to back and then nothing for another 18 minutes. But I get what you mean.

What other way to solve this seasonal problem though with the extension of the shuttle?

[RR503]

2 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The problem with Crescent Street is that they've built around the curve to such a degree that you can't make it any less sharp without demolishing buildings

True, but again am wondering whether at least 20mph can be squeezed out of the existing curve geometry. If you can get it up to that, returns to realignment start to go down a lot. 

1 minute ago, Jemorie said:

The only reason why the  is set up the way it is east of Rockaway Blvd is because of these rumors of “politicians” coming into play from the Lefferts Blvd Branch about through express service to Manhattan vs local service and then changing for express. Not that I’m saying we can’t stand up for the  to Lefferts though and believe me, I’m in favor for a  permanent extension to Lefferts. I just don’t see why it should be peak direction only.

It's not just politicians -- MTA doesn't like  extension because they can't get 3 roundtrips out of  crews if they do it. Not in any way an insurmountable issue, but it's just yet another little barrier between current svc and a  extension. 

As for the proposal, I was suggesting a Concourse Line sort of arrangement -- s to and from the Rockaways run express in the peak direction, local in the other.  runs local in both directions. 

4 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

As for as my earlier proposal, I see what you’re saying. It’s just Rockaway Blvd is an all honestly a bad terminal for seasonal shuttle trains from Rockaway Park. Northbound, they arrive shortly before an  from Far Rockaway. Southbound, they arrive shortly after an  to Far Rockaway. Just like they would at Broad Channel. So the seasonal extension is, well, sorta pointless. Because Aqueduct, North Conduit, Howard Beach, Broad Channel, and Rockaway Beach goers still experience lengthy commutes. Instead of trains coming evenly apart (10 minutes) between Rockaway Blvd and Hammels Wyes, trains were still often coming back to back and then nothing for another 18 minutes. But I get what you mean.

What other way to solve this seasonal problem though with the extension of the shuttle?

It helps a lot if you don't want to have to choose between a Lefferts and a Rockaways train! Just get off at Rockaway Boulevard and wait. 

I would staff Rockaway Boulevard better so that fumigation is quicker. Other than that, really the only way is to ensure you schedule adequate space between s and s. 

[Union Tpke]

45 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I'm still skeptical that, politically speaking, one can build a new el without any stops to provide community benefit...

Also, Crescent is a legit activity center! Would be curious to know what could be achieved at the curves there w/ better superelevation and CBTC to address the constraints of fixed block control over curves. 

Again, half of the catchment area is a cemetery, and it would be a single track structure that could be located on the cemetery side of the street.

[RR503]

Just now, Union Tpke said:

Again, half of the catchment area is a cemetery, and it would be a single track structure that could be located on the cemetery side of the street.

I'm not sure that makes it much better--people who don't want an el because there's really no upside for them in supporting it aren't going to be all that moved by us telling them it'll actually be 20 feet further away from their front windows than they thought. It saddens me that this is how things work in this city, but it is, alas, the only way things get done it would seem. 

Just sayin', we already have an elevated structure through the area with decent ridership to boot!

[Union Tpke]

@RR503

In terms of upgrades to lines, something I have thought of for a bit of time is rebuilding 137th Street-City College as a two island platform express station. Expresses would run nonstop between 96th and 137th and continue to VCP, while locals would terminate and exit revenue service in the yard there. This would save time for riders from the Bronx, and would provide less crowded trains for the Upper West Side. Do you think this would make sense?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

7 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

In terms of upgrades to lines, something I have thought of for a bit of time is rebuilding 137th Street-City College as a two island platform express station. Expresses would run nonstop between 96th and 137th and continue to VCP, while locals would terminate and exit revenue service in the yard there. This would save time for riders from the Bronx, and would provide less crowded trains for the Upper West Side. Do you think this would make sense?

Definitely -- it's an idea I've toyed with too. Only qualifications I'd make is that I'd want to analyze the impact such a service pattern would have on  crowding, as well as what the most efficient way to route short turns through that complex area would be. 

[Jemorie]

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

It's not just politicians -- MTA doesn't like  extension because they can't get 3 roundtrips out of  crews if they do it. Not in any way an insurmountable issue, but it's just yet another little barrier between current svc and a  extension. 

As for the proposal, I was suggesting a Concourse Line sort of arrangement -- s to and from the Rockaways run express in the peak direction, local in the other.  runs local in both directions. 

It helps a lot if you don't want to have to choose between a Lefferts and a Rockaways train! Just get off at Rockaway Boulevard and wait. 

I would staff Rockaway Boulevard better so that fumigation is quicker. Other than that, really the only way is to ensure you schedule adequate space between s and s. 

They have enough cars to do the proposed  to Lefferts. The agency is just bullshitting around as always. They would need at most an additional four extra trainsets to be operated by crews who would need to be paid to operate them. Meanwhile, all s head down to/from the Rockaways (10-12 minutes headways for both Rockaway sub-branches rush hours and 15-20 minutes all other times). This way, everyone on both Rockaway sub branches still get through service to/from Manhattan. The  operates only at night when all s go to/from Far Rockaway.

Concourse Line sort of arrangement? Why? Do you mean those s or s skip most of the stops along the Liberty El? You don’t really need to do that when trains are already express in Brooklyn and Manhattan. From Euclid and onwards, everyone east of Euclid skip a total of 9 stations to get to/from the city (plus the 3 skipped stations between Canal and 59). Please correct me if I misinterpreted again. 

My thing with Rockaway Blvd’s current design and structure is the fact that the Lefferts Blvd  and Rockaway Park  can’t physically make an across platform connection in neither direction so that it’s easier for Rockaway Beach goers/leavers as well as those at Broad Channel and the next three stations north of it. This means fumigation and relaying; and trains between Rockaway Blvd and Hammels Wye either coming back to back before another 18 minute wait over and over again, or alternating headways of 8 minutes and 12 minutes instead of perfect 10 minutes between trains. It sucks. But yeah I get it. I guess just stick to the usual waiting game for the right train for the right destination, even if it means getting off at the last transfer point and waiting, like they already do non-summer weekends anyway.

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

You certainly _could_ do it, I just don’t think it’s worth the investment. You’re fixing an issue that’s only present for a few months of the year and could be largely mitigated by just improving ops practices w/r/t relays.

Now, if this is a part of a larger plan to realign the middle track of the Lefferts El to feed the express tracks at Euclid instead of Pitkin so you can run  to Lefferts deinterlined in the peak direction, I’m all ears...

This sounds like a very difficult project in light of the fact that it is in service and there aren’t nearby alternatives to the . Might as well go with the original IND plan of building that fabled local station and then continuing to the current Rockaway Beach R.O.W. via that.

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Three track local stations that should be converted to express stations are Cypress Hills and Woodhaven Blvd (with the traveling non stop on a new El over Jamaica Avenue and then express via the middle track provision)

Crescent Street and Cypress Hills should both be express stations given that the curve forces trains to slow to a crawl anyway. Might as well make a stop.

[StevenFrancis]

Fantasy line: (P) Main Street Local

Bullet colour: magenta

Rolling stock: R160

Yard: Jamaica

Stops:

Bay Plaza +Bx12 SBS+

Pelham-Hutchinson Pkwys +Bx12 SBS+

Westchester Av

Ferry Point Park-Lafayette Av +Q44 SBS+

20th Av

Linden Place

32nd Av

Roosevelt Av +Q44 SBS+ LIRR 

Dahlia Av 

Booth Memorial Av +Q44 SBS+

Reeves Av-Queens College +Q44 SBS+

Jewel Av +Q44 SBS+

73rd Av +Q44 SBS+

Union Turnpike +Q44 SBS+

Briarwood  +Q44 SBS+

Jamaica-Van Wyck  

Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av-JFK +Q44 SBS+ LIRR AirTrain

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

You certainly _could_ do it, I just don’t think it’s worth the investment. You’re fixing an issue that’s only present for a few months of the year and could be largely mitigated by just improving ops practices w/r/t relays.

Now, if this is a part of a larger plan to realign the middle track of the Lefferts El to feed the express tracks at Euclid instead of Pitkin so you can run  to Lefferts deinterlined in the peak direction, I’m all ears...

From what I'm interpreting from this idea, the middle track that's connected to Pitkin Yard would be reconnected to the Fulton Express Tracks (the ones used as a relay) in addition to converting Rockaway Blvd into a Peak Direction Station (3 track; 2 Island Platforms) which will bring the following benefits:

Extension to Lefferts with a peak-Express Service between Euclid and Rockaway Blvd

Less wait times along the Rockaways for Service. I'm predicting an increase from 20 or so Minutes to 10-8 Minute headways. 

I'm all for this idea!

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

In terms of upgrades to lines, something I have thought of for a bit of time is rebuilding 137th Street-City College as a two island platform express station. Expresses would run nonstop between 96th and 137th and continue to VCP, while locals would terminate and exit revenue service in the yard there. This would save time for riders from the Bronx, and would provide less crowded trains for the Upper West Side. Do you think this would make sense?

Since the runs about 24 or so TPH Now, would this idea add more service, depending on how high a demand for this potential Express service might become? 

Also, kinda irrelevant, but this proposal right here can go in handy with deinterlining CPW. 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

They have enough cars to do the proposed  to Lefferts. The agency is just bullshitting around as always. They would need at most an additional four extra trainsets to be operated by crews who would need to be paid to operate them. Meanwhile, all s head down to/from the Rockaways (10-12 minutes headways for both Rockaway sub-branches rush hours and 15-20 minutes all other times). This way, everyone on both Rockaway sub branches still get through service to/from Manhattan. The  operates only at night when all s go to/from Far Rockaway.

Oh, no contest on any of these points. Merely trying to elaborate on why this proposal hasn't been implemented. 

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Concourse Line sort of arrangement? Why? Do you mean those s or s skip most of the stops along the Liberty El? You don’t really need to do that when trains are already express in Brooklyn and Manhattan. From Euclid and onwards, everyone east of Euclid skip a total of 9 stations to get to/from the city (plus the 3 skipped stations between Canal and 59). Please correct me if I misinterpreted again. 

It's not so much about skipping more stops as it is allowing the  to go to Lefferts without adding merges with the . We're obviously not getting a 4th track on the Liberty El or a subway extension beyond Euclid, which leaves us with the middle track on the El to work with. You won't be able to avoid merges in the off peak direction, but with this design at least in the peak direction you're avoiding adding those interactions. 

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Concourse Line sort of arrangement? Why? Do you mean those s or s skip most of the stops along the Liberty El? You don’t really need to do that when trains are already express in Brooklyn and Manhattan. From Euclid and onwards, everyone east of Euclid skip a total of 9 stations to get to/from the city (plus the 3 skipped stations between Canal and 59). Please correct me if I misinterpreted again. 

I infer you're talking construction logistics here? I don't think those would be _that_ difficult given that this would be happening under a grassy median and the parking lots that surround Grant Ave. Doing a subway connection as you suggest would be great, but would require a much larger commitment -- this is somewhat deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. 

12 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Since the runs about 24 or so TPH Now, would this idea add more service, depending on how high a demand for this potential Express service might become? 

 runs 18tph into the core right now, but can only add 6 more thanks to the crappy terminal config at South Ferry. I'm sure that'll improve if/when they add CBTC there, but for now that's the number I'd work with. It's certainly enough to run express service, the questions I'd pose are 

- How does this affect  loads/how can we mitigate those effects?

- (as you noted) How does this interface with our service priorities for CPW?

- How do we avoid 137 becoming the next Parkchester?

[Union Tpke]

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh, no contest on any of these points. Merely trying to elaborate on why this proposal hasn't been implemented. 

It's not so much about skipping more stops as it is allowing the  to go to Lefferts without adding merges with the . We're obviously not getting a 4th track on the Liberty El or a subway extension beyond Euclid, which leaves us with the middle track on the El to work with. You won't be able to avoid merges in the off peak direction, but with this design at least in the peak direction you're avoiding adding those interactions. 

 

I infer you're talking construction logistics here? I don't think those would be _that_ difficult given that this would be happening under a grassy median and the parking lots that surround Grant Ave. Doing a subway connection as you suggest would be great, but would require a much larger commitment -- this is somewhat deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. 

 runs 18tph into the core right now, but can only add 6 more thanks to the crappy terminal config at South Ferry. I'm sure that'll improve if/when they add CBTC there, but for now that's the number I'd work with. It's certainly enough to run express service, the questions I'd pose are 

- How does this affect  loads/how can we mitigate those effects?

- (as you noted) How does this interface with our service priorities for CPW?

- How do we avoid 137 becoming the next Parkchester?

What is the issue with the configuration at New South Ferry?

[LGA Link N Train]

30 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What is the issue with the configuration at New South Ferry?

The interlockings are near South Ferry as opposed to just outside of the station. South Ferry end in bumper blocks as an addition to that.

[Trainmaster5]

12 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

In terms of upgrades to lines, something I have thought of for a bit of time is rebuilding 137th Street-City College as a two island platform express station. Expresses would run nonstop between 96th and 137th and continue to VCP, while locals would terminate and exit revenue service in the yard there. This would save time for riders from the Bronx, and would provide less crowded trains for the Upper West Side. Do you think this would make sense?

I have seen part of your proposal, in a different form, firsthand so here’s my take. 137th was a terminal for many years. The relay position was that middle track between 137 and 145 . The yard /layup tracks straddle both sides of the existing 3 revenue tracks. I don’t know how to avoid the obvious problems in the 137th St area and south of the 103rd St stop  with trains switching between local and express lineups. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have the VCP trains run express on the tracks they currently use while bypassing 103, 110, 116, and 125 streets ? That’ll avoid the extra switching involved. While we’re at it Dyckman St was used as a terminal back in the day, too, which also helped us with overcrowded trains running the full route from VCP to the Ferry. It just seems like it would make more financial sense to at least consider reviving some past practices. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Lex]

Look, I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure the station is too shallow for a three-track station without making a bunch of significant road modifications (street and rail).

[RR503]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The interlockings are near South Ferry as opposed to just outside of the station. South Ferry end in bumper blocks as an addition to that.

The bumpers are definitely the bigger issue — they mean you have to crawl in on GT.

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I have seen part of your proposal, in a different form, firsthand so here’s my take. 137th was a terminal for many years. The relay position was that middle track between 137 and 145 . The yard /layup tracks straddle both sides of the existing 3 revenue tracks. I don’t know how to avoid the obvious problems in the 137th St area and south of the 103rd St stop  with trains switching between local and express lineups. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have the VCP trains run express on the tracks they currently use while bypassing 103, 110, 116, and 125 streets ? That’ll avoid the extra switching involved. While we’re at it Dyckman St was used as a terminal back in the day, too, which also helped us with overcrowded trains running the full route from VCP to the Ferry. It just seems like it would make more financial sense to at least consider reviving some past practices. Just my opinion. Carry on.

To be clear, the suggestion is keep the current track arrangement, and just run VCP trains express from 96 to 137 via M track? Or am I missing something?

[Trainmaster5]

24 minutes ago, RR503 said:

The bumpers are definitely the bigger issue — they mean you have to crawl in on GT.

To be clear, the suggestion is keep the current track arrangement, and just run VCP trains express from 96 to 137 via M track? Or am I missing something?

Post 8437 suggested rebuilding 137St as a 2 Island platform station while I don’t think a rebuild is needed and suggested alternatives. I took past operations and included some of them into consideration. I’m also eliminating the extra switching south of 103rd St. Maybe I missed something ?

Edited December 18, 2019 by Trainmaster5
Context

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm still skeptical that, politically speaking, one can build a new el without any stops to provide community benefit...

Also, Crescent is a legit activity center! Would be curious to know what could be achieved at the curves there w/ better superelevation and CBTC to address the constraints of fixed block control over curves. 

I’ve been wondering if it might be possible to run  trains peak direction express on the two-track el between Woodhaven and Broadway Junction with a stop at Crescent. Meanwhile,  trains would run local and each  would depart a couple minutes after each  to minimize the risk of an express  getting stuck behind a local . Then after Broadway Jct, the  would switch onto the middle track the rest of the way through Brooklyn. Maybe this might be a bit more palatable than building a bypass el. 

5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I have seen part of your proposal, in a different form, firsthand so here’s my take. 137th was a terminal for many years. The relay position was that middle track between 137 and 145 . The yard /layup tracks straddle both sides of the existing 3 revenue tracks. I don’t know how to avoid the obvious problems in the 137th St area and south of the 103rd St stop  with trains switching between local and express lineups. Wouldn’t it be simpler to have the VCP trains run express on the tracks they currently use while bypassing 103, 110, 116, and 125 streets ? That’ll avoid the extra switching involved. While we’re at it Dyckman St was used as a terminal back in the day, too, which also helped us with overcrowded trains running the full route from VCP to the Ferry. It just seems like it would make more financial sense to at least consider reviving some past practices. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Maybe something like this can be done on the . The  ran more frequently back then and still runs more frequently than the  do today.

Edited December 18, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue