Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Snowblock]

You forgot to add the Brighton Express to the list. But don't worry about getting the facts straight, since this plan is NEVER going to be implemented.

 

IF the were extended to Lefferts, go ahead and let the Lefferts riders wait for their precious express. That'll give more seats to the Fulton St local riders. Nobody's FORCING them to transfer there, I'm sure the is going to go to their stop too......

Edited July 6, 2013 by Snowblock

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

I want to Ronkonkoma....there I said it.

I was thinking the , but yeah, that's feasible too...

[Roadcruiser1]

The only fantasy plan I have EVER really reasonably expected to see actually happen is extending the one stop to Burke Ave-White Plains Rd, and building an in-system transfer to the .That tunnel is already built halfway there with the relay tracks, and Burke could be a real terminal, no more relays, no more crew changes at Bedford Park. Plus that extension from 205 to Burke provides a connection between the two neighborhoods which are otherwise separated by the Bronx River. So much practicality there......

 

Extending it to Co-Op City is overkill. That would be like trying to build another SAS.

 

Extension to Co Op City isn't a far fetched idea for the . It was a proposal from the IND Second System. It also called for the Second Avenue Subway to be extended up Third Avenue in the Bronx and to meet up with the somewhere north of Norwood 205th Street where both the and the planned Second Avenue Subway service would have moved on to Co Op City. Of course it wasn't built due to the Great Depression and the arrival of the automobile, but you get the idea.

[Q90]

Let me just write this all out so I'm not confused:

A - full service to Far Rockaway

B - 205 St to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Exp, Fulton St Exp

C - extended to Lefferts

D - truncated to 145 St via Central Park West Lcl

Is that right? If so, why are you advocating such a change in the IND? First off, if I'm repeating something already said, I apologize. I didn't read the whole thread. Starting off with the B to Rock Pk, that area does not need that much service. The only time you could justify an increase in service for Rockaway Park is during the summer months where more riders are heading to the beach. Other than that, you'd be running many empty trains. Also, what would serve the Brighton line? Riders will not appreciate having the Q local as the only option on the line. And even if you bring back the Q-diamond, there will still be no 6th Avenue service on Brighton, which was the reason the B and D switched Brooklyn lines in 2004.

Regarding the C to Lefferts/all As to Far Rock, again, the area does not need that much service. Also, sending the C to Lefferts Blvd would just make riders transfer to the A at Rockaway Blvd, which will lead to more empty trains west of the station.

On the subject of having the B and D switch roles north of Columbus Circle, just, why? It serves no purpose other than railfan wank. What I mean by that is that it just looks like you want to see the D local and the B express for little reason. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, but that's how I see it.

You know actually your right. I realized my idea was a flop and it would be inconvenient to too many passengers. So I'm the one who needed to be corrected. And your half right about me switching the roles of the and .

[Vistausss]

I want to Ronkonkoma....there I said it.

 

Lololol. You do know that LIRR is gonna be sending mad letters to your door if that were to actually happen?

[Roadcruiser1]

I was thinking the , but yeah, that's feasible too...

 

Sarcasm: Or we could just extend the and to London, England.  

[Vistausss]

Sarcasm: Or we could just extend the and to London, England.

 

Why not make it a world line? Imagine how it would be to go to Washington Heights and take an train to Europe, Asia and then travel back with the from Japan to Hawaii and then via CA and Oklahoma right back to where it started

 

I guess my foam bucket business will skyrocket tonight. GET YOUR FOAM BUCKET HERE, for low low prices.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Vistausss

[GojiMet86]

God damn, this thread is 7 pages long...

[ScreechyFlange]

Sarcasm: Or we could just extend the and to London, England.

 

Why dont we just make things simple and rational by sending the to Disneyland to help reduce congestion on the Monorail?

[BrooklynIRT]

Of course it wasn't built due to the Great Depression and the arrival of the automobile.....

 

Edited July 7, 2013 by BrooklynIRT

[IRT Bronx Express]

God damn, this thread is 7 pages long...

What were you expecting? These fantasy reroute/extension threads, while annoying, can be hilarious at times.

[bobtehpanda]

Extension to Co Op City isn't a far fetched idea for the . It was a proposal from the IND Second System. It also called for the Second Avenue Subway to be extended up Third Avenue in the Bronx and to meet up with the somewhere north of Norwood 205th Street where both the and the planned Second Avenue Subway service would have moved on to Co Op City. Of course it wasn't built due to the Great Depression and the arrival of the automobile, but you get the idea.

 

...A more logical choice to extend to Co-op City would be the .

 

Let's be honest here, there were parts of the Second System that didn't make any sense at all. If you think that Broadway needs nine tracks running above and below it, then you are out of your mind.

[LTA1992]

It did make sense to have 8 tracks running under South 4th Street since it was to split into 3 different trunks going east and two west.

[realizm]

...A more logical choice to extend to Co-op City would be the  .

 

Let's be honest here, there were parts of the Second System that didn't make any sense at all. If you think that Broadway needs nine tracks running above and below it, then you are out of your mind.

 

 

 

@ bobtehpanda: The deal with the IND Second System and why it may have seemed that some proposals 'may have not made sense' today is because demographics changed necessitating different plans over the years and decades.

 

Many industrial plants in the now dying US manufacturing industry existed during the early 20th Century that are now service industry oriented or residential areas today.  Robert Moses and his efforts at the automobile, let's not forget that either, many highways were also built that also died out the demand for certain IND lines to be built. Finally the monkeyf*!k politics in out state's capitol and the games they played historically.

 

The IND never proposed 9 tracks under Broadway FYI. They did consider trunk lines with more than 4 tracks with the SAS, and South 4th St see next comment below for the breakdown.

 

Extension to Co Op City isn't a far fetched idea for the  . It was a proposal from the IND Second System. It also called for the Second Avenue Subway to be extended up Third Avenue in the Bronx and to meet up with the   somewhere north of Norwood 205th Street where both the   and the planned Second Avenue Subway service would have moved on to Co Op City. Of course it wasn't built due to the Great Depression and the arrival of the automobile, but you get the idea.

 

 

 

@ Roadcruiser1: As for why much of the Second System was never built? 

 

World War 2, and the Korean War took place. The White House,US Congress, and the US Military ordered all civilian projects to be halted and for all contractors to focus on the war efforts starting in 1939 if I'm correct, and a complete halt by 1943. That was the final nail in the coffin for the IND second system. No other projects was proposed under the NYCTA (Exception being the IND Rockaway line and the IRT Dyre Ave Line as well as the 59th St IRT express station with transfer to the BMT) until the MTA took over in 1965, and started the grand master plan for the SAS including incorporation of the Christie St connection and the 6th Ave Express corridors, which finally in part fulfilled part of the purpose of the IND Second System South 4th St line, as well as groundbreaking for the SAS, also an original purpose of the IND second system, difference being it was the MTA that now captured the original goals of the IND regarding expansion.

 

Then came the fiscal crisis of the 70's. Now moving forward to the year 2007, the MTA resurrected the construction of the SAS, again one of the original proposals of the IND Second System. The rest is history and current events.

 

*Edit: Insert quotations

Edited July 7, 2013 by realizm

[peacemak3r]

God damn, this thread is 7 pages long...

 

Seriously lol

 

What were you expecting? These fantasy reroute/extension threads, while annoying, can be hilarious at times.

 

Still, this beat my initial guess of 4 pages max.

[bobtehpanda]

 

 

 

 

@ bobtehpanda: The deal with the IND Second System and why it may have seemed that some proposals 'may have not made sense' today is because demographics changed necessitating different plans over the years and decades.

 

Many industrial plants in the now dying US manufacturing industry existed during the early 20th Century that are now service industry oriented or residential areas today.  Robert Moses and his efforts at the automobile, let's not forget that either, many highways were also built that also died out the demand for certain IND lines to be built. Finally the monkeyf*!k politics in out state's capitol and the games they played historically.

 

The IND never proposed 9 tracks under Broadway FYI. They did consider trunk lines with more than 4 tracks with the SAS, and South 4th St see next comment below for the breakdown.

 

 

 

 

@ Roadcruiser1: As for why much of the Second System was never built? 

 

World War 2, and the Korean War took place. The White House,US Congress, and the US Military ordered all civilian projects to be halted and for all contractors to focus on the war efforts starting in 1939 if I'm correct, and a complete halt by 1943. That was the final nail in the coffin for the IND second system. No other projects was proposed under the NYCTA (Exception being the IND Rockaway line and the IRT Dyre Ave Line as well as the 59th St IRT express station with transfer to the BMT) until the MTA took over in 1965, and started the grand master plan for the SAS including incorporation of the Christie St connection and the 6th Ave Express corridors, which finally in part fulfilled part of the purpose of the IND Second System South 4th St line, as well as groundbreaking for the SAS, also an original purpose of the IND second system, difference being it was the MTA that now captured the original goals of the IND regarding expansion.

 

Then came the fiscal crisis of the 70's. Now moving forward to the year 2007, the MTA resurrected the construction of the SAS, again one of the original proposals of the IND Second System. The rest is history and current events.

 

*Edit: Insert quotations

 

They wanted to build six tracks under Broadway east of S 4th (or very close to it), and that's in addition to the 3-track Jamaica El. I doubt they would've demolished the el, since it would've been the only thing heading into the Nassau St Line. There aren't that many places in the city that require so much track in so little space.

 

In the 1929 plan, the Jamaica El would've been extended and then looped back to a "Brinckerhoff Av" Line heading back towards Manhattan, and the 1939 plan had a Ft. Hamilton Pkwy Line off the Culver Line (presumably elevated) and a Staten Island Line off this new train line.

 

System expansion was great, but some of these things in the context of the larger system didn't really make sense.

[realizm]

They wanted to build six tracks under Broadway east of S 4th (or very close to it), and that's in addition to the 3-track Jamaica El. I doubt they would've demolished the el, since it would've been the only thing heading into the Nassau St Line. There aren't that many places in the city that require so much track in so little space.

 

In the 1929 plan, the Jamaica El would've been extended and then looped back to a "Brinckerhoff Av" Line heading back towards Manhattan, and the 1939 plan had a Ft. Hamilton Pkwy Line off the Culver Line (presumably elevated) and a Staten Island Line off this new train line.

 

System expansion was great, but some of these things in the context of the larger system didn't really make sense.

 

Oh I thought you meant the BMT Broadway. OK yeah that is true on the South 4th St line apparent by a six track ghost station that hosts freaky events now instead of passengers.

 

The 1929 map, now that you are mentioning it on the proposed loop yeah it was Brinkerhoff, it was supposed to feed back into the IND Fulton St line. Why? No idea, never got that one. maybe you can break that weird setup down for us, cause I never got the sense of that one.....

 

Correct on the Ft Hamilton Line to SI utilizing the old BMT bellmouths @ Owl's Head Pk for it's own Dual Contracts SI plans in later blueprints. Oh yeah, that was why the Culver Viaduct was 4 tracks and that immediate descent into tunnels at Church, that was in preparations for the Ft Hamilton line. Glad you brought that up.

Edited July 7, 2013 by realizm

[Snowblock]

Watch out, you're starting to turn this fantasy map circlejerk into an actual discussion!

[Vistausss]

...A more logical choice to extend to Co-op City would be the .

 

Not at all. Like I said: the makes the most sense since it currently terminates very close to the Eastchester border with even the old concrete el pillars still in place in Eastchester so it's only a matter of putting the deck back on 'em, placing rails and then build a new curve (after some blocks) towards Co-Op and a new terminal there and done.

[Eric B]

They wanted to build six tracks under Broadway east of S 4th (or very close to it), and that's in addition to the 3-track Jamaica El. I doubt they would've demolished the el, since it would've been the only thing heading into the Nassau St Line. There aren't that many places in the city that require so much track in so little space.

 

It was supposed to replace the el. I think (IIRC) the Nassau line would have connected to the Worth line/S4 tunnel after Essex.

[Q90]

Watch out, you're starting to turn this fantasy map circlejerk into an actual discussion!

Well good because I decided to back down my idea. The flaws got pointed out so I say the and now should stay the way they are and a should be started to replace the Lefferts as many people confuse the trains and the would make all stops west of Rockaway Boulevard.

[realizm]

OK but now we are talking two problems.

 

First we are talking about a shortage of cars. There are barely enough cars as it is to supplement the as it is let alone a service to lefferts, with the SMEE scrap mishap when the R160's started to be introduced into revenue service in 2006.

 

Second, the Cranberry Street tunnel cannot handle more but two lines at a time.The river tubes will be brought to it's limit with crushing capacity problems. It would make better sense, (if at all possible) to add a few put ins as a temporary remedy. CBTC I'm sure isn't coming to the 8th Ave line and the Cranberry St tube any time soon. The MTA is focused on the and the QBL, as it is on CBTC installation. We'll have to wait decades before that to Lefferts via Fulton Street be implemented.

 

In fact many engineers looked into this over the years, the only way that capacity on Fulton St can be fully utilized is with a new river tunnel to bring trains into Court street into the IND Fulton St line. If we actually had a new river tube to feed trains into this Brooklyn subway line, then perhaps that could actually work. 

 

But as of now it cannot work. I'm sure there are other reasons too that cannot come to mind right now.

[bobtehpanda]

OK but now we are talking two problems.

 

First we are talking about a shortage of cars. There are barely enough cars as it is to supplement the as it is let alone a service to lefferts, with the SMEE scrap mishap when the R160's started to be introduced into revenue service in 2006.

 

Second, the Cranberry Street tunnel cannot handle more but two lines at a time.The river tubes will be brought to it's limit with crushing capacity problems. It would make better sense, (if at all possible) to add a few put ins as a temporary remedy. CBTC I'm sure isn't coming to the 8th Ave line and the Cranberry St tube any time soon. The MTA is focused on the and the QBL, as it is on CBTC installation. We'll have to wait decades before that to Lefferts via Fulton Street be implemented.

 

In fact many engineers looked into this over the years, the only way that capacity on Fulton St can be fully utilized is with a new river tunnel to bring trains into Court street into the IND Fulton St line. If we actually had a new river tube to feed trains into this Brooklyn subway line, then perhaps that could actually work. 

 

But as of now it cannot work. I'm sure there are other reasons too that cannot come to mind right now.

 

Let's bring Court St back into service and terminate some trains there!

 

/sarcasm

 

Not at all. Like I said: the makes the most sense since it currently terminates very close to the Eastchester border with even the old concrete el pillars still in place in Eastchester so it's only a matter of putting the deck back on 'em, placing rails and then build a new curve (after some blocks) towards Co-Op and a new terminal there and done.

 

Those pillars are probably not structurally sound, so fixing them up would be expensive (not to mention disruptive.)

 

The can be extended over the highway.

[realizm]

Let's bring Court St back into service and terminate some trains there!

 

/sarcasm

 

I hear you, let's shoot that proposal down ahead of time before that's even brought up, that wouldn't work as we would know because all passenger travel along the IND Fulton is clearly Manhattan-centric as of July 2013.

[Roadcruiser1]

None of his ideas are possible because there isn't enough room in the tunnels underneath the East River to handle more train service. That is unless if the drilled more tunnels underneath the East River which isn't going to happen because the is broke and can't pull money out of thin air.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Roadcruiser1