Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[ActiveCity]

18 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Honestly, if we wanted to use that as a primary route into the city we'd probably want to provide express service along Ft. Hamilton Parkway (bring back the , send it to Coney Island, send the  to South Av via the SIE and Ft Hamilton Parkway local, and then send the to St. George via the old South Shore ROW and Ft Hamilton Parkway express). The would make all current Culver local stops to Coney Island, and the  and  would make the following stops:

15 Av/39 St (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/39 St (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/New Utrecht Av (express, transfer to )

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/ 50 St (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/55 St (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/62 St (express, transfer to )

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/Bay Ridge Av (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/77 St (local)

Ft Hamilton Pkwy/86 St (local)

Bay Ridge/95 St (express, transfer to )

New York Av-Ft Wadsworth (express, branch point)

 trains would split off and turn north, stopping at Fingerboard Rd, Hylan Blvd/PS 13, Clifton, Stapleton, Tompkinsville, and St. George, while the would continue on in the median of I-278, stopping at Hylan Blvd (connecting to a new stop on the SIR), Richmond Rd, Manor Rd, Bradley Av, Victory Blvd, South Av, and Gulf Av.

 

I actually have a plan for a Staten Island subway. It involves an extension of the IND Culver line under Fort Hamilton Parkway/10th Avenue, as a 4 track line. In addition to this plan, it involves a new BMT Interborough line under 67th Street and along the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch right of way, as a 2 track line. Furthermore, two branches of the BMT 4th Avenue line will branch off. One of them involves an extension south of the Bay-Ridge 95th Street station which will then run under the Narrows, while other will branch off at 59th Street by utilizing the unfinished 67th Street tunnel meeting with the proposed BMT Interborough line. By "meeting", I meant that there will be a total of 4 tracks with no merging involved. Anyways, here's my take on how the NYC subway system should expand it's subway system including Staten Island: Revolutionary New York City subway map

https://goo.gl/maps/gh1xdw1BFb1kGKDq9

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, let me know.

Edited March 9, 2023 by ActiveCity

[engineerboy6561]

5 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

I actually have a plan for a Staten Island subway. It involves an extension of the IND Culver line under Fort Hamilton Parkway/10th Avenue as a 4 track line. In addition to this plan, it involves a new BMT Interborough line which would replace some sections of the BMT Sea Beach line making it's way into Staten Island under 67th Street. Furthermore, two branches of the BMT 4th Avenue line will branch off. One will branch off under the Narrows (express), and the other will branch off under the unfinished 67th Street tunnel (local) along with the proposed BMT Interborough line. Anyways, here's my take on how the NYC subway system should expand it's subway system including Staten Island: Revolutionary New York City subway map

https://goo.gl/maps/gh1xdw1BFb1kGKDq9

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, let me know.

I'll check it out when I get home tonight and offer feedback then

[ActiveCity]

I actually have a plan for a Staten Island subway. It involves an extension of the IND Culver line & IND Crosstown (see my map for details) under Fort Hamilton Parkway/10th Avenue and the Narrows, as a 2 and 4 track line meeting up with the (see my map for details). By that I mean there will be a total of 4 tracks with no merging involved. In addition to this plan, it involves a new BMT Interborough line under 67th Street and along the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch right of way, as a 2 track line meeting up with the (see my map for details). By that I mean there will be a total of 4 tracks with no merging involved. Furthermore, it involves two extensions of the BMT 4th Avenue line & (see my map for details). The will extended south of the Bay-Ridge 95th Street station which will then run under the Narrows, as a 2 track line meeting up with the (see my map for details). By that I mean there will be a total of 4 tracks with no merging involved. while the will branch off south of the 59th Street station by using the abandoned 67th Street tunnel, as a 2 track line meeting up with the (see my map for details). By that I mean there will be a total of 4 tracks with no merging involved. Anyways, here's my take on how the NYC subway system should expand it's subway system including Staten Island: Revolutionary New York City subway map

[T to Dyre Avenue]

16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think part of the IND's original plan was to connect to extend the Culver Line to the Fort Hamilton Line which then branches and goes into Staten Island. Looking at it now, even though the train would've been express along Culver, it still is a bit of a "roundabout" route that might be less than ideal.

Agreed. The  proposal in Vanshnookenraggen's blog post would be much a more direct route, unless you're headed to Downtown Brooklyn or the Financial District, because a route from Bay Ridge straight up 4th Avenue is just more direct. And it has the advantage of being at least a semi-express service, unlike the all too often-proposed idea to just extend the all-local .

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by T to Dyre Avenue

[ActiveCity]

Revolutionary New York City subway map https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bE-NgnA0sJF_A3za6ox1shNcfPp5Dl8&ll=40.570342362465574%2C-74.12185529255079&z=12

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by ActiveCity

[engineerboy6561]

4 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Revolutionary New York City subway map https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bE-NgnA0sJF_A3za6ox1shNcfPp5Dl8&ll=40.570342362465574%2C-74.12185529255079&z=12

 

I took a look at this and I have a lot of thoughts; unfortunately I only have half a braincell because work was a lot this week, so it may be the weekend before I can put together a critique.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

5 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Revolutionary New York City subway map https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1bE-NgnA0sJF_A3za6ox1shNcfPp5Dl8&ll=40.570342362465574%2C-74.12185529255079&z=12

 

Nice job!

Overall I like what you did; it adds extensions while still streamlining the existing system. I also feel like you did a good job at connecting the outer boroughs better while still improving capacity, especially between Brooklyn and Queens. I particuarly like the way you used the footprint of the IND second system with the South 4th Street Line and Crosstown Line and made it your own.

These would be my critiques:

I think the  to Redhook isn't worth it and there are other ways to better connect Red Hook; it only provides coverage to a very small part of Redhook and can never really be connected to anything else in South Brooklyn.

I think the  train starts to get too long, and I think the small  branch into Williamsburg will end up just making operation more difficult and the  coming from Brooklyn very overcrowded. I might argue the  is also getting a bit too long and going across Jamacia Bay is a bit excessive considering how few riders would actually use that portion of the line.

The  taking up precious space on QBLVD, even if it's the local, will prolly lead to more problems than it helps.

That  train seems a bit long, but given it gets it's own tracks for the entire route might be able to work ok.

Extending the already crowded Flushing Line further into Queens with minimal relief other than the  might be problematic. Furthermore, the  would be heavily favored over the 8 coming into Manhattan, which doesn't help either.

Converting Brighton to IRT is interesting, but it reduces redundancy and rerouting options when delays come

I worry your version of the Horace Harding Line may actually feed more to Queens Blvd than relieve it given how much less direct the route is.

I feel like extending both the Archer Avenue line and Queens BLVD line is a bit redundant; i would rather invest in something like a 3rd Avenue subway in the Bronx.

Replacing the  with the  is less than ideal imo

 

[TMC]

Speaking of Staten Island, I've always thought the first connection to be built should be between Grand Central and St. George, as a regional rail line. There's no reason why the first outside rail connection shouldn't touch the core of the region, rather than all of the proposals winding through Brooklyn.

[mrsman]

I am happy to present my latest plan that is meant to separate different trains at the worst merger points, but still keeping many of the familiar travel patterns available.

Sorry, no maps, but hopefully, this can lead to a fruitful discussion. Here is the regular daytime and rush hour services for trains on 8th Ave, 6th Ave, and Broadway.

 

168th St Washington Heights - CPW/8th Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Rutgers Tunnel- Culver line 

Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse/CPW/8th Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line to Metropolitan Ave. [During non-rush hours, service starts at 145th Street.] 

 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway 

179 St - Hillside/QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Lefferts 

179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid 

The above service pattern separates 8th Ave trains from each other. The three express services are fully deinterlined, every one of those trains runs identically between Forest Hills and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This allows for maximum throughput on two of the busiest sections of track, QBL express and the Fulton line in Brooklyn. All 8th Ave trains service the 50th street station. The 8th Ave locals still partially interline with the 6th Ave trains in upper Manhattan and with either or   trains in Brooklyn.  

 

207 St - CPW/6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express 

205 St - Concourse line (express in rush hour) - CPW/6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local 

 

96 St - 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach 

96 St - 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - West End 

 

The above service pattern keeps the 6th Ave express trains completely separate from other trains between 145th St and Coney Island. It maintains that both the Inwood branch and the Concourse branch each have an express and a local service down CPW. While it does restrict all CPW expresses to 6th and all CPW locals to 8th, this allows for a greater amount of trains to flow through Columbus Circle and at CC, there is the ability to make a cross platform transfer, if needed.

The Broadway express trains are fully separated from other train services. The service pattern also fully separates 6th and Broadway trains at DeKalb. While there is no easy transfer between 6th-Brighton and Broadway-4th trains, most passengers won't need to transfer since the two sets of trains are only an avenue apart in all of Midtown. Any 4th Ave passenger needing the Upper West side or any Brighton passenger needing the Upper East Side could transfer at Herald Square.

 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local - W4 switches - WTC 

Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Montague Tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Whitehall 

 

and provide the local counterpart for 6th Ave and Broadway trains. provides a hybrid service supplementing the in Queens and the in Manhattan. is necessary to provide QBL local riders with access to Queens Plaza (and Long Island City) and direct access to Broadway. These three tains do interline with each other, but with no other trains in the system. It allows for partial interlining here, in order to keep the express trains mostly separated.      

The W4 switches, as utilized, completely separate 8th Ave and 6th Ave locals from each other, despite the new service pattern. The reason I utilize it is becuase it will allow for more service given the hybrid trains. There would be a lot less Culver and Myrtle if and had to share Forest Hills with trains, then if I connect Culver and Myrtle service to the and which have the CPW local tracks to themselves. As planned, there is only one 6th Ave local service so this service can be easily turned at WTC. Spring, 14th/6th, 23rd/6th, 57th/6th, Roosevelt Island, and 21st-Queensbridge are only served by one train service.      

With regard to a rush hour service pattern, I basically envision that and will each run at 14 TPH and W will run at 7 TPH. and should run at the same frequency so that the can more easily slide into service. It also provides 2 s (or s) for every .   and will utilize the Jamaica Yard and will utilize Coney Island Yard, by riding out of service trains on the Sea Beach or West End lines.           

 

trains are suspended in favor of the new   

, , , trains run in their current pattern.    

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Like this plan a lot better than the past versions; I think this would be the way to best optimize it.

The only real downside I see is the Queens BLVD express trains via 8th Avenue all have quite long routes, with few places to short-turn, and that could lead to more general problems with service which isn't great considering QBLVD express needs as may tph as it can get. One of the things that makes the current  nice is it's a relatively short route so there's just less that could go long along the way, whereas the today has a lot of obvious problems. If you had all QBLVD express go via 63rd, you would be able to have short turn trains at 2nd Avenue, with every other train going down the Culver Line. The downside to this would be you would prolly want to eliminate any 6th Avenue service over the Jamacia El cause it'd just make scheduling QBLVD too iffy and Jamacia El trains are constrained to 8 cars which would suck for QBLVD express.

[Reptile]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:18 PM, mrsman said:

I am happy to present my latest plan that is meant to separate different trains at the worst merger points, but still keeping many of the familiar travel patterns available.

Sorry, no maps, but hopefully, this can lead to a fruitful discussion. Here is the regular daytime and rush hour services for trains on 8th Ave, 6th Ave, and Broadway.

 

168th St Washington Heights - CPW/8th Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Rutgers Tunnel- Culver line 

Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse/CPW/8th Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line to Metropolitan Ave. [During non-rush hours, service starts at 145th Street.] 

 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway 

179 St - Hillside/QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Lefferts 

179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd street tunnel - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid 

The above service pattern separates 8th Ave trains from each other. The three express services are fully deinterlined, every one of those trains runs identically between Forest Hills and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This allows for maximum throughput on two of the busiest sections of track, QBL express and the Fulton line in Brooklyn. All 8th Ave trains service the 50th street station. The 8th Ave locals still partially interline with the 6th Ave trains in upper Manhattan and with either or   trains in Brooklyn.  

 

207 St - CPW/6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express 

205 St - Concourse line (express in rush hour) - CPW/6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local 

 

96 St - 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach 

96 St - 2nd Ave - Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - West End 

 

The above service pattern keeps the 6th Ave express trains completely separate from other trains between 145th St and Coney Island. It maintains that both the Inwood branch and the Concourse branch each have an express and a local service down CPW. While it does restrict all CPW expresses to 6th and all CPW locals to 8th, this allows for a greater amount of trains to flow through Columbus Circle and at CC, there is the ability to make a cross platform transfer, if needed.

The Broadway express trains are fully separated from other train services. The service pattern also fully separates 6th and Broadway trains at DeKalb. While there is no easy transfer between 6th-Brighton and Broadway-4th trains, most passengers won't need to transfer since the two sets of trains are only an avenue apart in all of Midtown. Any 4th Ave passenger needing the Upper West side or any Brighton passenger needing the Upper East Side could transfer at Herald Square.

 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local - W4 switches - WTC 

Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Montague Tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Whitehall 

 

I like this plan but I think the should run on 4th Avenue and the should run on Brighton. To avoid the just becoming a they would branch off in the Bronx.

Also the could be extended to Euclid Av through a new connection splitting from the in Brooklyn. This would also allow trains and future  trains access to the Fulton St Line. Then the would merge into one service.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/24/2023 at 7:49 PM, Reptile said:

I like this plan but I think the should run on 4th Avenue and the should run on Brighton. To avoid the just becoming a they would branch off in the Bronx.

Also the could be extended to Euclid Av through a new connection splitting from the in Brooklyn. This would also allow trains and future  trains access to the Fulton St Line. Then the would merge into one service.

 

I fully agree it‘s better to have the  via 4th Ave express and the  via Brighton. Since there seems to be a stronger demand for Broadway from Brighton, it may result in fewer passengers transferring at Atlantic. I also like the idea of connecting the  to Fulton to run to/from Euclid, which wouldn’t just eliminate the need for both 8th Ave services to merge at Schermerhorn, but would also allow Astoria Line trains to have a yard at one end (Pitkin). 
 

[Reptile]

5 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I fully agree it‘s better to have the  via 4th Ave express and the  via Brighton. Since there seems to be a stronger demand for Broadway from Brighton, it may result in fewer passengers transferring at Atlantic. I also like the idea of connecting the  to Fulton to run to/from Euclid, which wouldn’t just eliminate the need for both 8th Ave services to merge at Schermerhorn, but would also allow Astoria Line trains to have a yard at one end (Pitkin). 
 

Now that you bring up the yard I think the should run Astoria-Fulton and the Forest Hills to Bay Ridge. Otherwise the would have Jamaica and Pitkin yards while the would have nothing.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 minutes ago, Reptile said:

Now that you bring up the yard I think the should run Astoria-Fulton and the Forest Hills to Bay Ridge. Otherwise the would have Jamaica and Pitkin yards while the would have nothing.

Wouldn’t the  still have Jamaica Yard if it runs from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge? I’d keep the  doing that with a swap of the  and ‘s river tunnels, so that there’s much less merging at 36th St and Queens Plaza.

[Reptile]

11 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Wouldn’t the  still have Jamaica Yard if it runs from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge? I’d keep the  doing that with a swap of the  and ‘s river tunnels, so that there’s much less merging at 36th St and Queens Plaza.

I was referring to the original plan that mrsman posted with to Astoria

[Kamen Rider]

Too much transferring. Riders don’t want that. They do not want to sacrifice convenience for speed/ frequency. 

[Tonyboy515]

This is a random thought but it has to do with proposals, so I'll bring it up here:
Has there ever been a consideration to swap the  with the  below Church Avenue on Culver?
The  below church has very low ridership as it is and it may be more efficient to cut the off at Church and leave the   to points south (and maybe a rush hour  extension). 

In addition, we could consider a minor but significant Culver Express segment taken by either the  or the  from 4th Avenue-9th Street (preferably with a switch built right after 4th Avenue/before 7th Avenue for expresses to be able to serve 4th Avenue). The stops between 7th Avenue and Church Avenue have historically lower ridership than their express counterparts (unlike Carroll and Bergen) which could make this express segment more viable, whether taken by the  or . This express segment also has the functional benefit of eliminating a bottleneck at Church Avenue, which I repeatedly experience firsthand with  trains being stuck behind terminating/starting  trains.

Edit: Yes, riders to/from Manhattan would have to transfer at Church, but it would be cross-platform and preferably scheduled. Timing at Church would also ease merging after 7th Avenue/4th Avenue.

Thoughts?

Edited March 27, 2023 by Tonyboy515

[Vulturious]

54 minutes ago, Tonyboy515 said:

This is a random thought but it has to do with proposals, so I'll bring it up here:
Has there ever been a consideration to swap the  with the  below Church Avenue on Culver?
The  below church has very low ridership as it is and it may be more efficient to cut the off at Church and leave the   to points south (and maybe a rush hour  extension). 

In addition, we could consider a minor but significant Culver Express segment taken by either the  or the  from 4th Avenue-9th Street (preferably with a switch built right after 4th Avenue/before 7th Avenue for expresses to be able to serve 4th Avenue). The stops between 7th Avenue and Church Avenue have historically lower ridership than their express counterparts (unlike Carroll and Bergen) which could make this express segment more viable, whether taken by the  or . This express segment also has the functional benefit of eliminating a bottleneck at Church Avenue, which I repeatedly experience firsthand with  trains being stuck behind terminating/starting  trains.

Edit: Yes, riders to/from Manhattan would have to transfer at Church, but it would be cross-platform and preferably scheduled. Timing at Church would also ease merging after 7th Avenue/4th Avenue.

Thoughts?

I doubt running the  to Coney in place of the  is going to make any kind of difference nor would it even be worth it altogether. Ridership along the BMT Culver compared to the IND Culver (South Brooklyn/Crosstown) definitely couldn't compare, sure, but it's not like the investment is going to be anything more than minor even in the long term. 

Not really sure how much worth building new set of switches between 4 and 7 Av is, this one is definitely an interesting proposal. I'm not entirely against the idea, but again I just do not know how worth it is.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

9 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I doubt running the  to Coney in place of the  is going to make any kind of difference nor would it even be worth it altogether. Ridership along the BMT Culver compared to the IND Culver (South Brooklyn/Crosstown) definitely couldn't compare, sure, but it's not like the investment is going to be anything more than minor even in the long term. 

Not really sure how much worth building new set of switches between 4 and 7 Av is, this one is definitely an interesting proposal. I'm not entirely against the idea, but again I just do not know how worth it is.

Might it lead to better service on the  by making it entirely underground and having a shorter route overall? Queens BLVD express needs as many tph as it can get and I generally find the  to be a bigger liability than the  in terms of service gaps and stuff, I think in large part because it's such a long route.

[Lawrence St]

I was thinking if it would be beneficial to eliminate  service between 180th St & Dyre Ave, and restore that section back to railroad specifications and incorporate it into the Metro-North Network. Specifically, the line would be rebuilt to Mount Vernon East as a new branch line, which would have a new Island platform. Then, it would follow the original routing of the NYWB down to 180th St, eventually connecting with the NEC down to Penn Station. 
 

The  would become a rush hour only route, running from Nereid Ave to Flatbush Ave, and 149th St-Flatbush Ave during middays.

[Trainmaster5]

47 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I was thinking if it would be beneficial to eliminate  service between 180th St & Dyre Ave, and restore that section back to railroad specifications and incorporate it into the Metro-North Network. Specifically, the line would be rebuilt to Mount Vernon East as a new branch line, which would have a new Island platform. Then, it would follow the original routing of the NYWB down to 180th St, eventually connecting with the NEC down to Penn Station. 
 

The  would become a rush hour only route, running from Nereid Ave to Flatbush Ave, and 149th St-Flatbush Ave during middays.

I’m going to give you a quick heads up on this idea. The Dyre line is owned and operated by NYCT and connected only to the subway system at East 180th St station in the Bronx. There are no connections between the subway and the  operated MNCR. The section north of Dyre Avenue was severed over 80 years ago. The section south of East 180 St was abandoned before 1980 and sat unused until it was demolished and the land sold. You better rethink your plan. Carry on.

[engineerboy6561]

13 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I was thinking if it would be beneficial to eliminate  service between 180th St & Dyre Ave, and restore that section back to railroad specifications and incorporate it into the Metro-North Network. Specifically, the line would be rebuilt to Mount Vernon East as a new branch line, which would have a new Island platform. Then, it would follow the original routing of the NYWB down to 180th St, eventually connecting with the NEC down to Penn Station. 
 

The  would become a rush hour only route, running from Nereid Ave to Flatbush Ave, and 149th St-Flatbush Ave during middays.

There's no good way to tie that into Metro North; the tracks come into 180 St at something like 30-40' above road level and the NEC tracks are at something like 30-40' below road level; the grade would be atrocious, and there's no way to connect the bottom of the NEC with GCT in a reasonable fashion (technically the Oak Point track exists, but that's unelectrified single track and would require a reversing move through Highbridge Yard that renders it entirely impractical to use in regular service) which means everything would have to go through an already congested East River Tunnel and take already scarce slots away from Amtrak/LIRR/NJT. You'd be lucky to get 2tph under those conditions, which would be like an 85-90% loss in capacity for the folks who live up there (and would make their commutes much worse than they currently are).

I've definitely reused the upper part of that ROW in some very crayon-y proposals for intercity rail service (think NYC-Boston via White Plains/Danbury/Waterbury/Hartford/Worcester via the upper NYW&B/I-684/I-84/I-90), but even on those plans I basically had a pair of connecting tracks to the New Haven Line for commuter service to Danbury and put the intercity portion of the line south of MNR on the Hutchinson River Parkway ROW with a connection to the NEC in Goose Creek Marsh near Split Rock Golf Course.

Edited March 28, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

13 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I’m going to give you a quick heads up on this idea. The Dyre line is owned and operated by NYCT and connected only to the subway system at East 180th St station in the Bronx. There are no connections between the subway and the  operated MNCR. The section north of Dyre Avenue was severed over 80 years ago. The section south of East 180 St was abandoned before 1980 and sat unused until it was demolished and the land sold. You better rethink your plan. Carry on.

Based on Google Maps, several of the plots have been turned into fairly new looking ~12 floor apartment blocks. Eminent domain logistics likely wouldn't make this project worth it.

There's also a simillar situation between Far Rockaway Mott Av and the end of the LIRR Rockaway Branch; the new complex closes the door to any re-connection.

Edited March 28, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[Lawrence St]

9 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

There's no good way to tie that into Metro North; the tracks come into 180 St at something like 30-40' above road level and the NEC tracks are at something like 30-40' below road level; the grade would be atrocious, and there's no way to connect the bottom of the NEC with GCT in a reasonable fashion (technically the Oak Point track exists, but that's unelectrified single track and would require a reversing move through Highbridge Yard that renders it entirely impractical to use in regular service) which means everything would have to go through an already congested East River Tunnel and take already scarce slots away from Amtrak/LIRR/NJT. You'd be lucky to get 2tph under those conditions, which would be like an 85-90% loss in capacity for the folks who live up there (and would make their commutes much worse than they currently are).

I've definitely reused the upper part of that ROW in some very crayon-y proposals for intercity rail service (think NYC-Boston via White Plains/Danbury/Waterbury/Hartford/Worcester via the upper NYW&B/I-684/I-84/I-90), but even on those plans I basically had a pair of connecting tracks to the New Haven Line for commuter service to Danbury and put the intercity portion of the line south of MNR on the Hutchinson River Parkway ROW with a connection to the NEC in Goose Creek Marsh near Split Rock Golf Course.

It worked back then, why wouldn’t it be able to work now?

[engineerboy6561]

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

It worked back then, why wouldn’t it be able to work now?

It never ran to GCT, only to Willis Av; I don't believe they ever ran through trains to NYP or GCT before they went bankrupt. My argument here is that trying to connect to NYP would only really allow for 2 tph or so, and trying to connect to GCT would get you like 0.5tph and tie up Highbridge job on every move); both of those would be a huge downgrade from the 12-15 they currently get in  service. 

Edited March 28, 2023 by engineerboy6561