Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R10 2952]

5 hours ago, Theli11 said:

train isn't in demand for an express service though, neither is the . That's because every station on the and train are stations with high ridership and stations with people who would need the train (Columbia, 125, 137, 168 St) I'd say that we could implement express service after Dyckman St, but only if passengers in the area want it. 

I used the and the in the Bronx for over a decade.  The amount of battery runs that occur on both those lines during rush hour because of delays indicates the current pattern is not working.  Not saying there should be another or a , but am definitely saying that the present state of affairs needs to change because it f**king sucks.

Edited April 16, 2020 by R10 2952

[Collin]

What about bringing back  and skip stop service?  New South Ferry is 24 tph capable, so the wait times at skip stop stations would be considerably shorter than before, which is why I believe it got discontinued in the first place.  The  and  only run 12 tph combined during skip stop service.

I used station ridership data and made each train have about equal ridership and with skip stop service starting north of 96th Street.

All trains stop:  242nd, 168th, 116th.  Some  trains would terminate at 238th and go to the yard if terminal capacity is limited.   168th and 116th are the two highest ridership stations.

trains stop:  238th, 225th, 207th, 191st, 168th, 157th, 137th, 116th, 110th.

trains stop:  231st, 215th, Dyckman, 181st, 168th, 145th, 125th, 116th, 103rd.

Alternatively, because 103rd, 110th, and 137th also have over 4 million annual ridership, they could be all stop stations, in which case, 125th would be served by the  instead of the .  125th was not a skip stop station before, but I think it should be.

A zone express type service with a full length express and short turning local is a terrible idea for the  because the highest ridership stations are the ones that would be bypassed and they'd lose half their service.

The  is not a good candidate for skip stop service because there are fewer stops on the line, and the two busiest stations Burnside Avenue and Fordham Road are two stops away from each other, meaning they have to be all stop stations or there would be totally uneven ridership.  Even with this the ridership of a skip stop service is very uneven between the two trains.  A zone express would work really well if there were crossovers to go express after Yankee Stadium and if Fordham Road were configured express.  Yankee Stadium should've also been configured express on both Jerome and Concourse, but since it would be the last stop before the local/express split it wouldn't be as big of a deal.  With the current infrastructure, they actually piloted express service twice, but never fully implemented it.  My guess is because of Fordham Road and Yankee Stadium being such a busy stations that lost half their service.

[LGA Link N Train]

7 minutes ago, Collin said:

What about bringing back  and skip stop service?  New South Ferry is 24 tph capable, so the wait times at skip stop stations would be considerably shorter than before, which is why I believe it got discontinued in the first place.  The  and  only run 12 tph combined during skip stop service.

I used station ridership data and made each train have about equal ridership and with skip stop service starting north of 96th Street.

All trains stop:  242nd, 168th, 116th.  Some  trains would terminate at 238th and go to the yard if terminal capacity is limited.   168th and 116th are the two highest ridership stations.

trains stop:  238th, 225th, 207th, 191st, 168th, 157th, 137th, 116th, 110th.

trains stop:  231st, 215th, Dyckman, 181st, 168th, 145th, 125th, 116th, 103rd.

Alternatively, because 103rd, 110th, and 137th also have over 4 million annual ridership, they could be all stop stations, in which case, 125th would be served by the  instead of the .  125th was not a skip stop station before, but I think it should be.

A zone express type service with a full length express and short turning local is a terrible idea for the  because the highest ridership stations are the ones that would be bypassed and they'd lose half their service.

I up voted your post in regards to what you said about the , but in regards to the and , I beg to differ with you. The main reason that the  discontinued Skip-Stop service on the  was due to the decreasing number of people benefiting from such a service. Also, the stops within the vicinity of 96th Street and 137th Street-City College are way too popular for a skip-stop service to be warranted. I'll highlight on 125th Street because it was originally [meant to be] a skip stop station, but the main reason that both the  and  stopped there was due to fierce community opposition. Though, I'll give you credit where its due and say its a wise choice to have 116th Street be the "Express" Stop given that you have Columbia University and the M60+. 

Also, regarding wait times: That IMO is the main pitfall of running a skip stop service in general. The wait times decrease to half of normal frequencies so that trains can be spaced out properly. Therefore, you're adding to the wait time at a station which diminish the benefits of decreasing the runtime of your trip. As someone who rode the  to/from school everyday (not anymore cause of "quarantine"), I can tell you that skip-stop is annoying to deal with. Especially when trains aren't lined up properly. I can recall having to watch 2-3  Trains bypass Norwood while waiting for a  in the middle of winter. Trust me, its not fun. 

Though, since you mentioned the New South Ferry being able to handle 24 TPH, maybe skip-stop on the  wouldn't be as bad as it was back then, but I still don't find this to be a good idea. Maybe cause I'm just not a fan of skip-stop. 

[JeremiahC99]

21 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I think that University Avenue would be better if it were to have just the train on it. But Harlem - 148 could still be saved if you were to create a line from the end of the tail tracks, then turn it on 7th Av, next to Macombs Bridge, and elevating it out of the tunnel onto Jerome Av, going on your planned track, but leaving the out of it, would do better. There should be a connection between the  and  trains at Yankee Station. Via a passageway connecting to the end of the station and the Southbound platform (maybe an overpass/underpass to the Northbound side). Then it can go along your route. Honestly, we don't need a route on University though. This would do better than your plan because Jerome is still essential to the Bronx. Though University Avenue would be the best place for the   

While having the  solely on University Avenue is a good idea, I honestly feel that we should go the extra mile and relocate the  over there, and make the entire line 4 tracks from 153rd Street to Gun Hill Road. Not only would this provide faster service between Manhattan and the Bronx, but you would also have better access to the subway through this part of the Western Bronx, thus creating optimal coverage in the entire neighborhood. For example, the southern section on the line is under Anderson Avenue and serves an area west of Yankee Stadium that is currently a hike from the nearest subways. Meanwhile on the eastern side of the stadium you have two subway lines within walking distance of each other competing for passengers. Relocating current elevated subway service to Anderson and keeping the Grand Concourse where it is now would allow for people on both sides of the stadium. You also have some key locations on University currently not adequately served by the subway, such as the Bronx Community College, the VA Hospital, etc, so expanded subway service would open up new opportunities. And while the Jerome corridor services its riders well, as I mentioned before, the Concourse Subway is only within walking distance away, so that portion is still covered. 

 

As for Harlem-148th Street, one reason why I had service bypass the station was to accommodate changes to another station: 145th Street. That station can still only fit half of a full length train, which can cause some people to miss their stop. You also have a grade junction at 142nd Street which could pose risks to future service increases. What I pose to do is replace the 142nd Street Junction with a new grade separated one at 138th Street, building a new larger station below 145th Street to hold a full length train, then having the line enter the Bronx at 150th Street, but not serving Harlem-148th Street. Serving Harlem-148th Street while allowing for a full length 145th Street could require building a new Harlem-148th Street station before going via Macombs Damn to the Bronx, which would mean that I'd have two Harlem River Tunnel instead of one for the Lenox Line. Alternatively, if I did want to keep the number of river tunnels down, perhaps what I can do is maybe relocate the  and  from 149th Street to 161st Street as a new 4-track subway going crosstown under 161st Street, which does seem to pose challenges itself. I will continue to take a look at your suggestion for a Macombs Dam crossing.

[Collin]

The main reason the  skip stop exists is to take rush hour ridership off the  at the Archer stations.  They needed to make service faster and more attractive, so some form of express service was needed.  This is one instance in the system where a zone express vs skip stop service pattern was explored.  The zone express was dismissed because of difficulties with the express bypassing stations on the local track since no express track exists on much of the line, and because most stations would have lost half their service.  The skip stop service pattern allowed all trains to go to the end of the line, and provided more service at the high ridership stations, with less at the low ridership stations.  The main issue is that it was done primarily to benefit passengers at the last two stops, not from intermediate stops, so cutting service wasn't really a problem.  According to Wikipedia, service was increased from every 8 minutes to every 5 minutes when this was implemented, so all stop stations saw an increase in service, while skip stop stations saw a cut.

This differs from the  where they're not trying to increase speed through any possible means to relieve an overcrowded route.  It's the only route there and they're trying to serve customers along the entire line well, not just the last couple stops.  While doable, skip stop service may be less valuable in an instance like this.  My previous post was mainly to say that it could be re-implemented in a better way than it was done before since service was increased.

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

I've been thinking lately of what the rest of the world, especially Japan and South Korea, does in regards to the bluring of subway metro lines and commuter rail lines. I could see the subway taking over the Far Rockway, Long Beach, and Port Washington lines. I'm just wondering at the same time if the time savings is worth it.

For the FR and LB branches, I could see a Queens Boulevard-LIRR Main Line-63rd Street-6th Avenue being a top option, with Queens Blvd-53rd Street-8th Avenue and a new Lower Montauk-34th Street Crosstown line (subway vs. railroad, you decide) being close behind. A Port Washington takeover would have to be a 63rd Street-6th Avenue line.

 

I am doing  some very rough guestimates, the numbers might be off but I just want to get an idea:

A Far Rockaway and a Long Beach train both take 35-36 minutes to run FR/LB to Jamaica, but the LB trains skip stops after Valley Stream, so making all the stops between VS and JAM adds some 3-5 minutes for those LB trains. A LIRR train takes another 20 minutes to do JAM to Penn Station.

I'll be using the as an example for a QB-63rd Street service; it takes (on paper obviously) about 37 minutes to do Jamaica-179th to 34th Street, but it would 34-35 if running from Jamaica Center. It does make its first Manhattan stop in 30 minutes. If this  moves to the LIRR Main Line after Forest Hills, you might shave off some...1-2 minutes (32-33 minutes)?

Let's just say worst case it 35 minutes to do JAM-34th via the Main Line. That is an added 15 minutes over the LIRR straight 20 into Penn.........but that's not taking into account the acceleration and dwell times that would be introduced by subway cars. Not a math/physics guy by any stretch of the imagination, but I would guess that these two factors would shave off some 4-7 minutes, making it 28 minutes. That's an added 8 minutes to Penn, but now getting into Manhattan is not a big problem as before. And mind you, with the subway running into those outer reaches, transfers are easier to do.

In the end, a QB-63rd Street service runs from LB or FR going into Midtown-34th Street might range from 68 minutes (LB)/63 minutes (FR) to 75 (LB)/70 (FR), while the current LIRR trains which can take about some 55-65 (LB/FR). Of course, I would rather not this be an  that runs all the way to Brooklyn; that just becomes insufferable.

Maybe some who do better calculations might chime in?

The main issues with this:

• capacity on QBL and the Manhattan IND lines are completely spoken for today in terms of capacity.
• while this might allow direct routes and the subway is more frequent, in general subway trains are shorter and smaller, so you're not quite getting the bang for the buck.

Better to create a new C-Division with LIRR-sized subway trains that are FRA compliant (or alternative compliant) by digging a tunnel under 3rd from ESA to Atlantic.

[B35 via Church]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

.....but in regards to the and , I beg to differ with you. The main reason that the  discontinued Skip-Stop service on the  was due to the decreasing number of people benefiting from such a service. Also, the stops within the vicinity of 96th Street and 137th Street-City College are way too popular for a skip-stop service to be warranted. I'll highlight on 125th Street because it was originally [meant to be] a skip stop station, but the main reason that both the  and  stopped there was due to fierce community opposition. Though, I'll give you credit where its due and say its a wise choice to have 116th Street be the "Express" Stop given that you have Columbia University and the M60+.....

 

.....Though, since you mentioned the New South Ferry being able to handle 24 TPH, maybe skip-stop on the  wouldn't be as bad as it was back then, but I still don't find this to be a good idea. Maybe cause I'm just not a fan of skip-stop. 

I was affected by skip-stop service on the / & hated every second of it... It was supposed to be "complementary" service, but the (skip-stop) service always felt random as shit to me.... Sometimes the 1 would make stops where the 9 was supposed to & vice versa.... Got screwed countless times because of that... Instead of "I know the 1 only stops here" (Dyckman), it became "let's see if this one stops here or not"...

Nostalgically speaking, although I miss physically seeing a 9 train in operation (lol), I was elated to see skip stop service eradicated.... At least, more than I can say for those r/f-ers that ended up fighting on that final 9 train in operation anyway....

[Trainmaster5]

11 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Agreed; I would personally be in favor of making 2 Av four tracks, and running that line as four tracks up 3 Av in the Bronx, with stops at 125 St (express, last stop in Manhattan), 138 St (local, transfer to ), 149 St (express, change for ), 156 St (local), 161-163 Sts (express),  168 St(local), Claremont Parkway (local), 174 St(local), E Tremont Av (express), 183 St (local), Fordham Plaza (express), 196 St (local), Bedford Park Blvd (express), and Norwood-205 St (express, transfer to ); local service would end at Norwood, and the 3 Av express tracks would combine with the   tracks to form a 3-track line serving Gun Hill Rd with stops at Williamsbridge (express, transfer to ), Bronxwood Av (local), Boston Rd (local), Seymour Av (express, transfer to ), Bartow Av (local), and Bay Plaza (express, terminal). That would effectively provide the Webster/3 Av corridor with the capacity for 30+ tph in and out of the core, with Gun Hill Rd and Co-Op City getting 15-20 of those tph. Time wise it should at least be competitive with the  (the  is timetabled at 50-55 minutes from Dyre Av to GCT, and the  is timetabled at 62 minutes from 241 St to Times Sq; the  is timetabled at 43 minutes from Norwood/205 St to 34 St, and 2 Av express service would likely be no more than 2-5 minutes slower than the , and could be faster depending on the details of the track layout between Midtown and 125 St.

 

There might be; my understanding is some trains do that intermittently depending on passenger loads (or at least they did when I was taking it to work in the morning a couple of years ago). Having a service stop at 96 St, 116 St, 137 St, 168 St, and Dyckman St before making all local stops from there would be somewhat helpful; the issue is that the third track is in no way set up to do that, and the  runs far too many tph for you to be able to have both locals and expresses on the same track pair the way the Norristown High Speed Line in Philly does. If you wanted to have <1> trains you'd be better off building a second track pair underneath the current  line (or just rebuild the 1 between 96 and Dyckman to have four tracks) below Dyckman and then connecting it to the 7 Av local and express tracks directly between 103 and 96 Sts, and then doing something different with those tracks north of Dyckman. You could conceivably bring back the  as a Fordham Rd/Pelham Parkway crosstown line that turns south under the river and connects with the  on a new lower level at Dyckman.

The big issue with doing that is getting the tph balance right, since the  and  would likely both be running as 7 Av locals and South Ferry can only turn 24tph (and at least when I rode the  there was already a decent load by Dyckman St at 24tph; if you cut that to 12-15tph you'd likely have trains running pretty close to crushloaded on the upper end during rush. You could alleviate that by extending the   to Red Hook and building a terminal there with 30-40tph turning capacity, but you're still limited to 30tph on the 7 Av local tracks. You could run 20 tph  and 10tph  (with 5-10 additional tph running as shuttle service between Dyckman and Pelham Bay Park) on the assumption that most people heading for the west side will just take the  to the  and most people heading for the east side will take the  to the 3 Av trunk, but I'm honestly not sure how good of an assumption that is (especially since people like one-seat rides). If this were going to be done the upper 7 Av line would need a full rebuild to run four tracks to Dyckman (single level with crossover pairs at express stations, except at Dyckman (which would be a two-level station) and the 96 St connection for the   and  would need to be rebuilt to look like an IND junction; that would give you all the operational flexibility you'd ever need but it would be hilariously expensive and I'm not sure how much gain you'd get.

Actually, running the  local on upper Broadway and the  express might be better (and also more encouraging for use of the  as a crosstown rather than a one-seat ride into Manhattan); at that point the  would be fairly empty heading into Dyckman, and would mostly serve two distinct ridership bases (local riders in upper Manhattan, and crosstown riders in the Bronx), with fairly few people riding it through.

Is the  actually scheduled to take 55 minutes from Dyre to Grand Central these days ? The running time to Bowling Green from Dyre Avenue pre-ATS, pre-NTT, was 55 minutes according to my work program, my C/R , my T/D , and my rabbi who wrote the  line schedule we used back then. Such is progress I guess. The split on weekends used to be 27 minutes from Dyre to the Concourse and 26 minutes from there to BG on weekends for a 53 minute runtime. Wow, what a change. Perhaps some people see why I take some NYCT stats like the Trip Planners and ridership numbers with a healthy grain of salt. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Trainmaster5
Added content

[GojiMet86]

52 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The main issues with this:

• capacity on QBL and the Manhattan IND lines are completely spoken for today in terms of capacity.
• while this might allow direct routes and the subway is more frequent, in general subway trains are shorter and smaller, so you're not quite getting the bang for the buck.

Better to create a new C-Division with LIRR-sized subway trains that are FRA compliant (or alternative compliant) by digging a tunnel under 3rd from ESA to Atlantic.

 

Oh sure, I would believe that would be the better option. That could function more like those S-Bahn/RER systems and the Tokyo Metro. I still can't believe that Seoul's Subway Line 1, which is more of a commuter line, is about 120 miles with its branches.

[B35 via Church]

23 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Is the  actually scheduled to take 55 minutes from Dyre to Grand Central these days ? The running time to Bowling Green from Dyre Avenue pre-ATS, pre-NTT, was 55 minutes according to my work program, my C/R , my T/D , and my rabbi who wrote the  line schedule we used back then. Such is progress I guess. Perhaps some people see why I take some NYCT stats like the Trip Planners and ridership numbers with a healthy grain of salt. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Lol, MTA trip planner.... I think every NY-er that rides the subway has a "built in" trip planning mechanism between their ears that is more accurate than that crap

As far as the Dyre to GCT bit, yeah, almost an hour sounds about right.... Days of getting between Bowling Green & Dyre av under an hour, has gone & fell down by the wayside....

Edited April 17, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Late Clear]

55 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Is the  actually scheduled to take 55 minutes from Dyre to Grand Central these days ? The running time to Bowling Green from Dyre Avenue pre-ATS, pre-NTT, was 55 minutes according to my work program, my C/R , my T/D , and my rabbi who wrote the  line schedule we used back then. Such is progress I guess. The split on weekends used to be 27 minutes from Dyre to the Concourse and 26 minutes from there to BG on weekends for a 53 minute runtime. Wow, what a change. Perhaps some people see why I take some NYCT stats like the Trip Planners and ridership numbers with a healthy grain of salt. Just my opinion. Carry on.

It's the ridership.

5 is about 27 minutes Southbound Dyre to Mott (express E180 - 3/149) then another 27 minutes to Grand Central.  

That's on the AM tour.

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I used the and the in the Bronx for over a decade.  The amount of battery runs that occur on both those lines during rush hour because of delays indicates the current pattern is not working.  Not saying there should be another or a , but am definitely saying that the present state of affairs needs to change because it f**king sucks.

 

5 hours ago, Collin said:

What about bringing back  and skip stop service?  New South Ferry is 24 tph capable, so the wait times at skip stop stations would be considerably shorter than before, which is why I believe it got discontinued in the first place.  The  and  only run 12 tph combined during skip stop service.

I used station ridership data and made each train have about equal ridership and with skip stop service starting north of 96th Street.

All trains stop:  242nd, 168th, 116th.  Some  trains would terminate at 238th and go to the yard if terminal capacity is limited.   168th and 116th are the two highest ridership stations.

trains stop:  238th, 225th, 207th, 191st, 168th, 157th, 137th, 116th, 110th.

trains stop:  231st, 215th, Dyckman, 181st, 168th, 145th, 125th, 116th, 103rd.

Alternatively, because 103rd, 110th, and 137th also have over 4 million annual ridership, they could be all stop stations, in which case, 125th would be served by the  instead of the .  125th was not a skip stop station before, but I think it should be.

A zone express type service with a full length express and short turning local is a terrible idea for the  because the highest ridership stations are the ones that would be bypassed and they'd lose half their service.

The  is not a good candidate for skip stop service because there are fewer stops on the line, and the two busiest stations Burnside Avenue and Fordham Road are two stops away from each other, meaning they have to be all stop stations or there would be totally uneven ridership.  Even with this the ridership of a skip stop service is very uneven between the two trains.  A zone express would work really well if there were crossovers to go express after Yankee Stadium and if Fordham Road were configured express.  Yankee Stadium should've also been configured express on both Jerome and Concourse, but since it would be the last stop before the local/express split it wouldn't be as big of a deal.  With the current infrastructure, they actually piloted express service twice, but never fully implemented it.  My guess is because of Fordham Road and Yankee Stadium being such a busy stations that lost half their service.

I'm pretty sure there were battery runs during the skip stop days as well. This is not a new thing, and skip stop is not going to solve whatever problems are happening to cause battery runs.

[Collin]

I think the Franklin Avenue  should be extended to connect with the  at Bedford-Nostrand where it would terminate on the middle track.  It would run under Franklin Avenue until having a portal between Lefferts Place and Atlantic Avenue, where it would connect back to the existing elevated structure.  A new underground station would need to be built at Fulton Street.  The single track section should be upgraded to double track, and the stations and trains lengthened to 300 feet with provisions for extension to 480 feet.  This would also allow for through running with the Brighton local tracks and the Crosstown line, though the demand might not be there for that.  This would allow for a more seamless connection between South Brooklyn and neighborhoods further north in Brooklyn and even all the way to Queens without needing to go through Manhattan.

[bobtehpanda]

Thought: The is one of the few subway lines around that could reasonably serve the Navy Yard.

Proposal: Convert the to use AirTrain type automated light metro technology. Double track and extend to DUMBO via Navy Yard. 

Stops:

• Lafayette
• Myrtle
• (turns onto Flushing Av)
• Clinton
• Navy St
• Jay St (transfer to High St and York St  )

[engineerboy6561]

10 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Is the  actually scheduled to take 55 minutes from Dyre to Grand Central these days ? The running time to Bowling Green from Dyre Avenue pre-ATS, pre-NTT, was 55 minutes according to my work program, my C/R , my T/D , and my rabbi who wrote the  line schedule we used back then. Such is progress I guess. The split on weekends used to be 27 minutes from Dyre to the Concourse and 26 minutes from there to BG on weekends for a 53 minute runtime. Wow, what a change. Perhaps some people see why I take some NYCT stats like the Trip Planners and ridership numbers with a healthy grain of salt. Just my opinion. Carry on.

During rush, yes; the schedule calls for about 50 minutes between Grand Central and Dyre Av for morning expresses and 55-57 minutes for morning locals, with the weekday split now being 25-30 minutes from 149 St/3 Av to Dyre Av and 20-30 minutes between 149 St and Grand Central; my guess would be some combination of added timers, increased congestion, and issues with ATS like you've described in a couple of other threads.

Edited April 17, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Collin]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Thought: The is one of the few subway lines around that could reasonably serve the Navy Yard.

Proposal: Convert the to use AirTrain type automated light metro technology. Double track and extend to DUMBO via Navy Yard. 

Stops:

• Lafayette
• Myrtle
• (turns onto Flushing Av)
• Clinton
• Navy St
• Jay St (transfer to High St and York St  )

That would be somewhat of a circuitous route, but would work.  It would be able to connect to the BQX.  I'm not sure if converting it to AirTrain style rolling stock is a good idea.  Probably better to stick with what the subway uses rather than have a different fleet that's isolated from anywhere else.

[Jova42R]

15 hours ago, Collin said:

What about bringing back  and skip stop service?  New South Ferry is 24 tph capable, so the wait times at skip stop stations would be considerably shorter than before, which is why I believe it got discontinued in the first place.  The  and  only run 12 tph combined during skip stop service.

I used station ridership data and made each train have about equal ridership and with skip stop service starting north of 96th Street.

All trains stop:  242nd, 168th, 116th.  Some  trains would terminate at 238th and go to the yard if terminal capacity is limited.   168th and 116th are the two highest ridership stations.

trains stop:  238th, 225th, 207th, 191st, 168th, 157th, 137th, 116th, 110th.

trains stop:  231st, 215th, Dyckman, 181st, 168th, 145th, 125th, 116th, 103rd.

Alternatively, because 103rd, 110th, and 137th also have over 4 million annual ridership, they could be all stop stations, in which case, 125th would be served by the  instead of the .  125th was not a skip stop station before, but I think it should be.

A zone express type service with a full length express and short turning local is a terrible idea for the  because the highest ridership stations are the ones that would be bypassed and they'd lose half their service.

The  is not a good candidate for skip stop service because there are fewer stops on the line, and the two busiest stations Burnside Avenue and Fordham Road are two stops away from each other, meaning they have to be all stop stations or there would be totally uneven ridership.  Even with this the ridership of a skip stop service is very uneven between the two trains.  A zone express would work really well if there were crossovers to go express after Yankee Stadium and if Fordham Road were configured express.  Yankee Stadium should've also been configured express on both Jerome and Concourse, but since it would be the last stop before the local/express split it wouldn't be as big of a deal.  With the current infrastructure, they actually piloted express service twice, but never fully implemented it.  My guess is because of Fordham Road and Yankee Stadium being such a busy stations that lost half their service.

 

15 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I up voted your post in regards to what you said about the , but in regards to the and , I beg to differ with you. The main reason that the  discontinued Skip-Stop service on the  was due to the decreasing number of people benefiting from such a service. Also, the stops within the vicinity of 96th Street and 137th Street-City College are way too popular for a skip-stop service to be warranted. I'll highlight on 125th Street because it was originally [meant to be] a skip stop station, but the main reason that both the  and  stopped there was due to fierce community opposition. Though, I'll give you credit where its due and say its a wise choice to have 116th Street be the "Express" Stop given that you have Columbia University and the M60+. 

Also, regarding wait times: That IMO is the main pitfall of running a skip stop service in general. The wait times decrease to half of normal frequencies so that trains can be spaced out properly. Therefore, you're adding to the wait time at a station which diminish the benefits of decreasing the runtime of your trip. As someone who rode the  to/from school everyday (not anymore cause of "quarantine"), I can tell you that skip-stop is annoying to deal with. Especially when trains aren't lined up properly. I can recall having to watch 2-3  Trains bypass Norwood while waiting for a  in the middle of winter. Trust me, its not fun. 

Though, since you mentioned the New South Ferry being able to handle 24 TPH, maybe skip-stop on the  wouldn't be as bad as it was back then, but I still don't find this to be a good idea. Maybe cause I'm just not a fan of skip-stop. 

 

12 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

I was affected by skip-stop service on the / & hated every second of it... It was supposed to be "complementary" service, but the (skip-stop) service always felt random as shit to me.... Sometimes the 1 would make stops where the 9 was supposed to & vice versa.... Got screwed countless times because of that... Instead of "I know the 1 only stops here" (Dyckman), it became "let's see if this one stops here or not"...

Nostalgically speaking, although I miss physically seeing a 9 train in operation (lol), I was elated to see skip stop service eradicated.... At least, more than I can say for those r/f-ers that ended up fighting on that final 9 train in operation anyway....

I live by the , and frankly, having a <1> or  is not worth it. It'd only go express from Dyckman to 242, and its just not worth the ridership losses.

 

If we want to improve west side transit (it doesn't really need improving, but I'll humor you), just make the M5 or M4 artics. That's it. You REALLY don't need a new line. If anything, just boost  service.

Just my two cents

Edited April 17, 2020 by Jova42R

[Jova42R]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Thought: The is one of the few subway lines around that could reasonably serve the Navy Yard.

Proposal: Convert the to use AirTrain type automated light metro technology. Double track and extend to DUMBO via Navy Yard. 

Stops:

• Lafayette
• Myrtle
• (turns onto Flushing Av)
• Clinton
• Navy St
• Jay St (transfer to High St and York St  )

 

1 hour ago, Collin said:

That would be somewhat of a circuitous route, but would work.  It would be able to connect to the BQX.  I'm not sure if converting it to AirTrain style rolling stock is a good idea.  Probably better to stick with what the subway uses rather than have a different fleet that's isolated from anywhere else.

I think this is a great idea. I drafted up a map:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1R3VhDzohiQdg6dsLaZBKJTPEOvUgeCgM&usp=sharing

Notes:

• The fleet would be Siemens S200 trams. This is so that the current high-level platforms can be served.
  • Why not regular subway stock? Because the many curves along the line would be way too tight for B Division stock
• This line would serve the navy yard with two stops, as well as surrounding areas.
• TPH
  • I think that if we can get Prospect Park to turn 24TPH, then we could have 24TPH, with 12TPH to Bklyn Brg Park and Cadman.
  • @engineerboy6561 you seem to know about how many trams would be needed - how many would be needed here?

Thoughts @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @T to Dyre Avenue @mrsman @Calvin @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

Edited April 17, 2020 by Jova42R

[Jova42R]

14 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Better to create a new C-Division with LIRR-sized subway trains that are FRA compliant (or alternative compliant) by digging a tunnel under 3rd from ESA to Atlantic.

I'm currently making a map and writing up a proposal for a GCT/Penn to Atlantic Tunnel. I'll post it here when it is done.

[Wallyhorse]

18 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I up voted your post in regards to what you said about the , but in regards to the and , I beg to differ with you. The main reason that the  discontinued Skip-Stop service on the  was due to the decreasing number of people benefiting from such a service. Also, the stops within the vicinity of 96th Street and 137th Street-City College are way too popular for a skip-stop service to be warranted. I'll highlight on 125th Street because it was originally [meant to be] a skip stop station, but the main reason that both the  and  stopped there was due to fierce community opposition. Though, I'll give you credit where its due and say its a wise choice to have 116th Street be the "Express" Stop given that you have Columbia University and the M60+.

Though, since you mentioned the New South Ferry being able to handle 24 TPH, maybe skip-stop on the  wouldn't be as bad as it was back then, but I still don't find this to be a good idea. Maybe cause I'm just not a fan of skip-stop. 

And now 125 can't be a skip-stop station because of the expansion of Columbia.  If anything, if possible that station needs to be converted to a two-island platform or one side, one-island platfoirm station that can serve as an express stop and short-turn terminal for the .  That's why I'd be looking to extend Phase 2 on the SAS to a new station at 125/Broadway with transfers to all other lines across 125 as Columbia's expansion alone makes it worth it. 

[Jova42R]

24 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

And now 125 can't be a skip-stop station because of the expansion of Columbia.  If anything, if possible that station needs to be converted to a two-island platform or one side, one-island platfoirm station that can serve as an express stop and short-turn terminal for the .  That's why I'd be looking to extend Phase 2 on the SAS to a new station at 125/Broadway with transfers to all other lines across 125 as Columbia's expansion alone makes it worth it. 

I agree fully. But, I'd say extend the SAS line to a new terminal at Grants tomb, with a connection to the proposed ferry terminal at 125th.

[Deucey]

14 hours ago, Collin said:

I think the Franklin Avenue  should be extended to connect with the  at Bedford-Nostrand where it would terminate on the middle track.  It would run under Franklin Avenue until having a portal between Lefferts Place and Atlantic Avenue, where it would connect back to the existing elevated structure.  A new underground station would need to be built at Fulton Street.  The single track section should be upgraded to double track, and the stations and trains lengthened to 300 feet with provisions for extension to 480 feet.  This would also allow for through running with the Brighton local tracks and the Crosstown line, though the demand might not be there for that.  This would allow for a more seamless connection between South Brooklyn and neighborhoods further north in Brooklyn and even all the way to Queens without needing to go through Manhattan.

 just spent all that money rebuilding it into that single track short platform line, and that was a compromise from closing it down altogether.

[Wallyhorse]

46 minutes ago, Deucey said:

 just spent all that money rebuilding it into that single track short platform line, and that was a compromise from closing it down altogether.

Right,  Before the idea of connecting it to the , I would look to rebuild the line to 600' stations and two tracks, have it go north of Franklin with the idea of having it connect to the Myrtle Avenue line as previously suggested.   As said before, this would be a "Black " that would run from Metropolitan Avenue-Coney Island via the Myrtle line, a short stretch of a rebuilt Myrtle El (including the old Sumner Avenue station), then Bedford-Nostrand with a transfer to the and then Franklin and from there running as a 24/7 Brighton Local with the 24/7 Brighton Express to Brighton Beach (extended overnights to Coney Island).  The would in this scenario become the second Brighton Local between Prospect Park and Coney Island since that would be part-time.   Such would include a connection from the South to the Broadway-Brooklyn line, allowing in an emergency or a G.O. for the and to use that to access 6th Avenue via the new line.. 

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Collin said:

That would be somewhat of a circuitous route, but would work.  It would be able to connect to the BQX.  I'm not sure if converting it to AirTrain style rolling stock is a good idea.  Probably better to stick with what the subway uses rather than have a different fleet that's isolated from anywhere else.

1. The BQX, and light rail along the waterfront in general, is a terrible idea due to the street network. Ideally I would like to see fully separated light metro instead, the same way the Docklands and Canary Wharf in London has its DLR.

2. Light rail and the BQX would also have a different fleet and you're not opposed to that.

[Trainmaster5]

18 hours ago, Late Clear said:

It's the ridership.

5 is about 27 minutes Southbound Dyre to Mott (express E180 - 3/149) then another 27 minutes to Grand Central.  

That's on the AM tour.

Although I was a PM guy from your numbers I see the problem. For my interval, the 1500 Dyre,  it was 27 minutes (local) to Mott, 5 minutes to 125th St and 12 minutes from 125 to Grand Central. That's one heck of a ridership increase from 2007-8 or so.

Edited April 17, 2020 by Trainmaster5