Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[shiznit1987]

On 4/4/2020 at 10:38 AM, RR503 said:

Yeah, of course they don’t want to. But we aren’t getting new Manhattan<>Queens tunnels anytime soon, and the only way you can extract more capacity from Queens boulevard is by getting more people to ride locals west of Roosevelt, sooooo...

As anyone who rides QB can tell you, the incentives to stay on the local today are mighty weak. Ever been to Roosevelt during the AM rush? Wall of lining the express, that grows whenever a local pulls in.

As someone who (was) riding the QB Line (and getting on at 65st no less), TONS of people stay on the  past Roosevelt. When I moved here I thought I'd be on easy street thinking everyone got off at Roosevelt and I'd be guaranteed and empty train. Boy was I wrong...

People want to get to either Broadway or 53rd St, and those getting on between Forest Hills and Roosevelt will stay on a local if it takes them where they want to go. This is why I always am deadset against any local service going through 63rd st. It would be as much of a waste as the  if not moreso. 

 

[MeeP15-9112]

58 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

As someone who (was) riding the QB Line (and getting on at 65st no less), TONS of people stay on the  past Roosevelt. When I moved here I thought I'd be on easy street thinking everyone got off at Roosevelt and I'd be guaranteed and empty train. Boy was I wrong...

People want to get to either Broadway or 53rd St, and those getting on between Forest Hills and Roosevelt will stay on a local if it takes them where they want to go. This is why I always am deadset against any local service going through 63rd st. It would be as much of a waste as the  if not moreso. 

 

Even so, there is a transfer to Broadway Express  along 63rd St, so it would do no harm if a local goes down 63 St.

The only hitch: The  is a sardines-in-a-can at that point. This problem could be solved by putting more  or even take some s and run then up 2 Av.

If it were more  service, we would need to fix the hell known as DeKalb Ave.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As someone who (was) riding the QB Line (and getting on at 65st no less), TONS of people stay on the  past Roosevelt. When I moved here I thought I'd be on easy street thinking everyone got off at Roosevelt and I'd be guaranteed and empty train. Boy was I wrong...

People want to get to either Broadway or 53rd St, and those getting on between Forest Hills and Roosevelt will stay on a local if it takes them where they want to go. This is why I always am deadset against any local service going through 63rd st. It would be as much of a waste as the  if not moreso. 

 

That’s probably another advantage of having the 8th Avenue service (the  or a different service) run local. Though I think it should run to/from 71st, if it runs local.

1 hour ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Even so, there is a transfer to Broadway Express  along 63rd St, so it would do no harm if a local goes down 63 St.

The only hitch: The  is a sardines-in-a-can at that point. This problem could be solved by putting more  or even take some s and run then up 2 Av.

If it were more  service, we would need to fix the hell known as DeKalb Ave.

Run the  express to/from 2nd Avenue and take away the  merge at 34th (and Prince on weekends...both are choke points). Don’t send any local s to 2nd; rather, run it as the sole Astoria service or reroute the  to Astoria. Running more s would be hard to do without deinterlining DeKalb, as there’s nowhere on the Brighton Line where they can be turned and Stillwell has difficulty turning what it’s already got.

 

[Theli11]

24 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Run the  express to/from 2nd Avenue and take away the  merge at 34th (and Prince on weekends...both are choke points). Don’t send any local s to 2nd; rather, run it as the sole Astoria service or reroute the  to Astoria. Running more s would be hard to do without deinterlining DeKalb, as there’s nowhere on the Brighton Line where they can be turned and Stillwell has difficulty turning what it’s already got.

Why don't we deinterline DeKalb, by running trains down Brighton? 

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Why don't we deinterline DeKalb, by running trains down Brighton? 

Ah, yes, let's separate Brighton from 14th Street. That's a great idea.

[RR503]

28 minutes ago, Lex said:

Ah, yes, let's separate Brighton from 14th Street. That's a great idea.

...Bleecker St, Barclays Center transfer to the ... Hardly separating them. 

FWIW, I think the most convincing argument against deinterlining Dekalb is that it'd make it difficult for West End riders to get to 8th Ave. You'd be looking at either an xfer to the  for Jay, a ride crosstown on the , or substitution using the  from Barclays for areas south of 42, at which point  are only a block from 8th. Do I think that that's sufficient reason not to deinterline Dekalb? No, both because 8th Avenue below 42 St has, by Manhattan standards, very low job density, and because Dekalb has huge operational ramifications for the system...including 8th Ave. But it's interesting food for thought. 

4 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As someone who (was) riding the QB Line (and getting on at 65st no less), TONS of people stay on the  past Roosevelt. When I moved here I thought I'd be on easy street thinking everyone got off at Roosevelt and I'd be guaranteed and empty train. Boy was I wrong...

People want to get to either Broadway or 53rd St, and those getting on between Forest Hills and Roosevelt will stay on a local if it takes them where they want to go. This is why I always am deadset against any local service going through 63rd st. It would be as much of a waste as the  if not moreso. 

I'm sure some do through ride. But the peak load point for the  is, last I checked, between Roosevelt and Elmhurst -- ie the sum of through riders and passengers boarding west of Roosevelt isn't enough to replicate loads east of Roosevelt. 

Re: O/D I'd strongly challenge the notion that the primary destinations are Broadway and 53.  trains gather most of their loads at 1 stop (Lex-59),  trains leave 47-50 packed, and SRO s north out of there in the PM are the norm. 53 is certainly a draw, but let's not forget that 6th Ave is damn near the median midtown job. 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s probably another advantage of having the 8th Avenue service (the  or a different service) run local. Though I think it should run to/from 71st, if it runs local.

Run the  express to/from 2nd Avenue and take away the  merge at 34th (and Prince on weekends...both are choke points). Don’t send any local s to 2nd; rather, run it as the sole Astoria service or reroute the  to Astoria. Running more s would be hard to do without deinterlining DeKalb, as there’s nowhere on the Brighton Line where they can be turned and Stillwell has difficulty turning what it’s already got.

This is obviously not as good as fully removing Broadway from 11th. But what would be the problem with the following service pattern:

to 96, same southern terminals

Forest Hills to Whitehall, weekdays only

Astoria to Bay Ridge

[engineerboy6561]

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to get DeKalb able to process 90 tph? If you could do that then you'd presumably see the same sort of improvement in reliability, on-time performance and throughput you'd get from a reconstructed Rogers Junction?

[MeeP15-9112]

26 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to get DeKalb able to process 90 tph? If you could do that then you'd presumably see the same sort of improvement in reliability, on-time performance and throughput you'd get from a reconstructed Rogers Junction?

For starters its this:

1. Imo, make the whole damn interlocking as straight as possible, and remove as many timers, obviously as safe as possible. 

2. Make the response to punch boxes faster. Increase trust btw. dispatch and the motormen. Every time I go NB out of DeKalb on any train on any of the Bridge tracks, the train comes to a dead stop right around the Masstransitscope.

3. Segregate the Bridge sides and the trunk lines. EX: All three current Brooklyn-bound Broadway trains (and maybe pre-2010  service to help out on the locals) stop at DeKalb Ave and go down 4th Ave (two exp, two lcl). All 6th Ave trains bypass DeKalb and go down Brighton (one exp, one lcl).

Transfers between the two lines can be done at Atlantic-Barclays or 34 St-Herald Sq. If ppl complain, then the can tell them that they are trying to increase service to benefit everyone in the five boros, seeing as many people in this thread would like something to be done about QBL and CPW.

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by MeeP15-9112
Opinion based first statement

[RR503]

40 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is obviously not as good as fully removing Broadway from 11th. But what would be the problem with the following service pattern:

to 96, same southern terminals

Forest Hills to Whitehall, weekdays only

Astoria to Bay Ridge

- If you’re going to interline 11 St, you may as well give Bay Ridge the yard to simplify equipment moves 

- Phasing out Whitehall as a terminal should be a long term planning goal given its severe negative impacts on through service

- City Hall Curve can’t handle >21tph with existing signaling, which would leave you with just 6tph of WHL-CTL after filling Astoria

22 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Just out of curiosity, what would it take to get DeKalb able to process 90 tph? If you could do that then you'd presumably see the same sort of improvement in reliability, on-time performance and throughput you'd get from a reconstructed Rogers Junction?

Reforming punch treatment may get you +1tph, but beyond that deinterlining is needed. It alone is likely the most impactful step you could take towards upping capacity, but you’d probably run into other topological constraints if you tried to push tph above, say, 24. Not only is the signal system within the junction quite gnarly (lots of timers, long control lines, etc), but many of the corridors feeding the junction have constraints of their own, ex 36 St merge and long control lines on the NB express for the , the sharp curve entering Dekalb NB on the , Whitehall terminal, 95 St terminal and City Hall Curve on the , 59 St on the , etc etc etc. This isn’t to say deinterlining isn’t useful, you just have to take a system perspective when doing it. 

[MeeP15-9112]

8 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

PLEASE NOTE: INSTEAD OF EDITING MY PREVIOUS POST, I ACCIDENTALLY QUOTED MYSELF WITH THE EDITS. Carry on.

For starters its this:

1. Imo, make the whole damn interlocking as straight as possible, and remove as many timers, obviously as safe as possible. 

2. Make the response to punch boxes faster. Increase trust btw. dispatch and the motormen. Every time I go NB out of DeKalb on any train on any of the Bridge tracks, the train comes to a dead stop right around the Masstransitscope.

3. Segregate the trunk lines and run them together in BK.

EX: All three current Brooklyn-bound Broadway trains (and maybe pre-2010  service to help out on the locals) stop at DeKalb Ave and go down 4th Ave (two exp, two lcl). All 6th Ave trains bypass DeKalb and go down Brighton (one exp, one lcl).

This way, there are no conflicting moves one either trunk, reducing the amount of delays waiting for a lineup.

Transfers between the two lines can be done at Atlantic-Barclays or 34 St-Herald Sq. If ppl complain, then the can tell them that they are trying to increase service to benefit everyone in the five boros, seeing as many people in this thread would like something to be done about QBL and CPW.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by MeeP15-9112
Clarification to why there are two duplicates

[Around the Horn]

21 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

2. Make the response to punch boxes faster. Increase trust btw. dispatch and the motormen. Every time I go NB out of DeKalb on any train on any of the Bridge tracks, the train comes to a dead stop right around the Masstransitscope.

This would be the easiest slam dunk in the world or as one British guy put it "a quick win"...

Ideally you would want some other system than punchboxes in place but we'll probably have to wait for CBTC to get that.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Around the Horn

[Jova42R]

If the  built a connection from the Manhattan Br to Nassau, could you theoretically short-turn some s there (if either the  or  were rerouted to the tunnel)

[MeeP15-9112]

58 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

If the  built a connection from the Manhattan Br to Nassau, could you theoretically short-turn some s there (if either the  or  were rerouted to the tunnel)

So essentially undo Chrystie Street?

If that gets built, then the connection will be to the Broadway side (thats closer to Nassau and was the Nassau’s side over the Bridge up until 1967) and is an at-grade junction like the junction south of 145 St , increasing the potential for delays along the whole BMT and reducing frequencies on the entire system.

The  short turns you mentioned are like the old Bankers Specials that go via Tunnel to/from Chambers in the peak hours and via Bridge to/from Manhattan to deadhead back.

[Theli11]

10 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

EX: All three current Brooklyn-bound Broadway trains (and maybe pre-2010  service to help out on the locals) stop at DeKalb Ave and go down 4th Ave (two exp, two lcl). All 6th Ave trains bypass DeKalb and go down Brighton (one exp, one lcl).

 

The track arrangements make it impossible for Brighton Trains to go on the express tracks, you might as well stop it instead of making it skip the station itself. 

If any Brighton Riders need Broadway Express Service, they can transfer at 34 St, or Atlantic Avenue. Or take the at DeKalb.

[darkstar8983]

18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is obviously not as good as fully removing Broadway from 11th. But what would be the problem with the following service pattern:

to 96, same southern terminals

Forest Hills to Whitehall, weekdays only

Astoria to Bay Ridge

This would be perfect, except the  would need to run weekends too. Would late night service require two second avenue services, meaning the  becomes a late night shuttle? or would there enough ridership to warrant two lines on 2 Av?

[MeeP15-9112]

6 hours ago, Theli11 said:

The track arrangements make it impossible for Brighton Trains to go on the express tracks, you might as well stop it instead of making it skip the station itself. 

If any Brighton Riders need Broadway Express Service, they can transfer at 34 St, or Atlantic Avenue. Or take the at DeKalb.

Making Brighton trains stop at DeKalb would cause interlining problems between the two trunks. 

The TA could put those Bypass-Brighton connections back, seeing that they were removed when they redid the interlocking way back when.

I will try to make a drawing of this redone interlocking.

[LGA Link N Train]

9 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Making Brighton trains stop at DeKalb would cause interlining problems between the two trunks. 

The TA could put those Bypass-Brighton connections back, seeing that they were removed when they redid the interlocking way back when.

I will try to make a drawing of this redone interlocking.

I think you got the track alignment between Brighton and 4th Avenue Express mixed up. 

You see, 4 outer tracks that stop at the DeKalb Avenue platforms all lead to the Brighton Line. In between those 4 tracks is a junction for trains to Branch off to the 4th Avenue Local. The inner 2 Tracks at DeKalb lead straight to the 4th Avenue express. Here, take a look:

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/detail-jaydklb.png

[Theli11]

18 minutes ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Making Brighton trains stop at DeKalb would cause interlining problems between the two trunks. 

The TA could put those Bypass-Brighton connections back, seeing that they were removed when they redid the interlocking way back when.

I will try to make a drawing of this redone interlocking.

I don't get how Brighton trains stopping at DeKalb would cause interlining, The South Side and North Side of Manhattan Bridge wouldn't cross each other at all, neither would 4th Avenue or Brighton since we're splitting them up by 6th Avenue (Brighton) and Broadway (4th Avenue). There wouldn't be any issues with interlining. 

[MeeP15-9112]

I forgot about the layout of DeKalb lol. my brain is turning into mush.

Taking into account what @Theli11 and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I propose that:

1. Keep existing interlocking format (Bypass serves 4 Av Exp only)

2. Have all 6th Ave  service serve DeKalb and Brighton.

3. Have all via Tunnel trains ( and possibly ) serve DeKalb as well, traveling south via 4th Ave local.

4. Using the existing flyovers/unders north of DeKalb, have all Bway via Bridge service  travel via DeKalb bypass and 4th Ave Express. 

5. The  and the  swap routes in Brooklyn.

6. If possible, the  gets extended down 4th Av to 95 St  to help on 4th Ave local. And if space and capacity allows on the Brighton, the  service could also be extended down the Brighton Local.

As previously mentioned, transfers can be done at 34 St, Atlantic-Barclays, and (now) DeKalb (this one is a nice cross-plat transfer).

Edited April 11, 2020 by MeeP15-9112
Specificity

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

I forgot about the layout of DeKalb lol. my brain is turning into mush.

Taking into account what @Theli11 and @LaGuardia Link N Tra said, I propose that:

1. Keep existing interlocking format (Bypass serves 4 Av Exp only)

2. Have all 6th Ave  service serve DeKalb and Brighton.

3. Have all via Tunnel trains ( and possibly ) serve DeKalb as well, traveling south via 4th Ave local.

4. Using the existing flyovers/unders north of DeKalb, have all Bway via Bridge service  travel via DeKalb bypass and 4th Ave Express. 

5. The  and the  swap routes in Brooklyn.

6. If possible, the  gets extended down 4th Av to 95 St  to help on 4th Ave local. And if space and capacity allows on the Brighton, the  service could also be extended down the Brighton Local.

As previously mentioned, transfers can be done at 34 St, Atlantic-Barclays, and (now) DeKalb (this one is a nice cross-plat transfer).

Do we really need the down Brighton? I think that only  trains should go to 95 St Rush Hours Only. But if we do this, there might be more trains then trains

So..  trains should run express from Marcy to Broadway Junction, and that trains stay local in Peak Direction. Skip stop service should still be provided after Broadway Junction. Personally, I think the Jamaica El should just get rebuilt. But too much gets taken from that part in Brooklyn between and trains. 

[MeeP15-9112]

48 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Do we really need the down Brighton? I think that only  trains should go to 95 St Rush Hours Only. But if we do this, there might be more trains then trains

So..  trains should run express from Marcy to Broadway Junction, and that trains stay local in Peak Direction. Skip stop service should still be provided after Broadway Junction. Personally, I think the Jamaica El should just get rebuilt. But too much gets taken from that part in Brooklyn between and trains. 

I think that the  is very underutilized by the TA and has lots of potential for growth. If Brighton needs all the capacity they can get, we could reroute the  to serve some other place, preferably the West End because it had Nassau St. service up until 2010. 
The “more  than  problem” could be solved with every other Nassau St train being  during the rush hour, that way there are even amounts of  and .

I am also with you on the Jamaica El. The Jamaica El should be three trackd its whole length.
Some stations should be rebuilt for express service. Woodhaven and 121 are candidates, 121 because the Q10 to JFK is nearby (and very busy indeed) and that the Lower Montauk is two blocks down (if they ever decide to rehab the line + reopen Richmond Hill.)
All stations from Broad and 121 should be lengthened (where possible) to ten cars to begin fleet uniformity with the rest of the IND/BMT system.

 

Edited April 11, 2020 by MeeP15-9112
Example

[Eric B]

10 hours ago, MeeP15-9112 said:

Making Brighton trains stop at DeKalb would cause interlining problems between the two trunks. 

The TA could put those Bypass-Brighton connections back, seeing that they were removed when they redid the interlocking way back when.

I will try to make a drawing of this redone interlocking.

The Brighton-to-bypass switch was AFTER DeKalb (going northbound), so that it would only skip Myrtle. This was the formerly open space where the curtain wall between the bypass and the tunnel tracks had ended (right where the tunnel tracks start to drop), but they've since extended the wall.

What they could do to access the bypass is right where the tunnel tracks split from the Brighton tracks north of Atlantic, the tunnel tracks begin running next to the bypass tracks when the ROW infrastructure merges, but it's separated by curtain wall and columns. If they make an opening there, then tunnel bound trains could switch tot he bypass before DeKalb.

Still, not sure how much worth it it would be for the construction required.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Eric B

[Jova42R]

Ok, here is my Cross-Brooklyn Light Rail (CBLR):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Myal082wT4FSbb4xP0FBvuDk9Q1qcGPZmY3UGbSS5Us/edit?usp=sharing

The reason I'm linking the doc instead of just copy-pasting here is that some of the images didn't input.

If anyone has any thoughts, critiques, things to change, feel free to post them here!

Thanks!

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, here is my Cross-Brooklyn Light Rail (CBLR):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Myal082wT4FSbb4xP0FBvuDk9Q1qcGPZmY3UGbSS5Us/edit?usp=sharing

The reason I'm linking the doc instead of just copy-pasting here is that some of the images didn't input.

If anyone has any thoughts, critiques, things to change, feel free to post them here!

Thanks!

The way you explained your rationale for this proposal is fairly decent. Though I do have to point out that the line going down to south Brooklyn from Williamsburg is duplicative of the and . Also, since this "system" is running along the BQE for the Most Part, will it be directly beneath the BQE for the parts that are not in the tunnel or no? 

For the Williamsburg Section of it, the more cost-effective alternatives in my opinion are the following:

• Extending the to 480' 8 car trains.
• Consolidating Hewes and Loimer Street Stations at Union Avenue in order to build a Transfer between the and
• Rebuilding Myrtle Avenue Junction to prevent Metro-bound Trains from merging with ALL  Trains 
• Moving Marcy Avenue to the West so that its directly on top of the Williamsbug Plaza Bus Terminal
• Re-Signalling the Williamsburg Bridge
• Expanding Essex Street Station for Future Capacity needs

All of this right here could be a package deal. As for the South Brooklyn Lightrail, I think it should be truncated to run between Red Hook and WIlliamsburg Plaza. Then your Greenpoint line could meet up with that WIlliamsburg Line. I don't think there needs to be a rail line near the FDR since Lower Manhattan has pretty good coverage when it comes to Transit.