Lance Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2076 Posted July 30, 2014 The idea is the in such a new setup would have Coney Island Yard since it and the would be swapping Brooklyn terminals (with the starting at 95th Street since it has Concourse Yard). That would ALSO be part of the going back to being the main Astoria line 24/7 with BOTH Bay Ridge and the West End being 24/7 lines in Brooklyn AND (with the brought back and the becoming full-time) Queens Boulevard also being 24/7 (and if you use the suggestion in the map below, possibly with the and both being fuill-time with the to 179th Street, allowing the to be express all the way through). Basically as I would do it, but with a new train replacing the along Queens Boulevard and running to Rockaway Park 24/7, eliminating the Rockaway Park in the process. So you would have the West End being served by a full time local? I'm sure riders would be switching over to the D for express service. Also, unless the switches north of 36 St are replaced with diamond crossovers, the N would have to run local on 4th Avenue as well in order to serve 45 St and 53 St. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2077 Posted July 30, 2014 Forgive me for analysing a nutty Wallyhorse plan, but my guess is the would be the new 4th Ave local and the would become express in its place, so West End riders would still have an express, but I still don't see any real reason to switch them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2078 Posted July 30, 2014 (edited) sorry 6th Avenue and QBL could use additional service you might as well have it via the localYou wouldn't be able to run this train at more than 6 tph, so it wouldn't be very attractive to Rockaway riders who currently have more frequent service on the existing bus routes. Even at 6 tph, you'd be getting dangerously close to maxing out track capacity on the 6th Ave local. And if the and have problems in Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn riders on those lines would be SOL, because you'd no longer be able to reroute them via the Rutgers St tunnel, because they wouldn't be able to fit with the F, M and V trains on the tracks between W 4th and 2nd Ave. Now if a Rockaway V ran via QBL local and 63rd St tunnel to 2nd Ave, instead of 6th, then it could run more frequently and not impact , and rerouted / service. But not too frequently, because it would have to coexist with the and on the QB local tracks and merge with the express en route to the 63rd St tunnel. Edited July 30, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2079 Posted July 30, 2014 Forgive me for analysing a nutty Wallyhorse plan, but my guess is the would be the new 4th Ave local and the would become express in its place, so West End riders would still have an express, but I still don't see any real reason to switch them. Well, hopefully his proposal also includes a rebuild of DeKalb junction because otherwise D and R trains will cross in front of each other to get to the Bridge/6th Avenue and Montague/Broadway respectively. Unless the R is now the Bridge line with the N being the tunnel local. But then that's just the N via the West End with a new letter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2080 Posted July 30, 2014 Forgive me for analysing a nutty Wallyhorse plan Sometimes I wonder if he's just trolling us given his above average knowledge of the system. I mean, from what I have in my head, I could easily come up with some nutty plan that's sure to drive the other veterans mad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted July 30, 2014 Share #2081 Posted July 30, 2014 Sometimes I wonder if he's just trolling us given his above average knowledge of the system. I mean, from what I have in my head, I could easily come up with some nutty plan that's sure to drive the other veterans mad. In this case, there's a very specific reason I would do it the way I would and that would be to potentially a company that would likely greatly benefit from a rebuild of the Rockaway Beach Branch into subway on board in endorsing it: Genting, which runs the casino at Aqueduct. As Genting is based in Malaysia, they likely still look at lower Manhattan as "The Financial District" even if it's not what it once was (as that area is now much more residential than even 15 years ago). Since the likely has to be brought back anyway once the SAS opens, that's why I would have that line run Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park, in large part so that Genting can see there being uptown service from The Financial District and you don't use the already-long for such service and I don't think Genting would as easily support it if you had the coming from Brooklyn because it does not serve "The Financial District" that this train would be serving. There is a domino effect of that, however, that leads to the other situations since the would also replace the along Queens Boulevard (to 63rd Street): Most notable of these would be the becoming the full-time Astoria branch (since the would be on Queens Boulevard) with the and as a result switching terminals so the has Coney Island Yard and the already has Concourse Yard. That's why I would do that, with the the second Astoria train on weekdays and a second SAS trains nights and weekends along an area that probably during those hours (upper east side) actually needs more service given how densely populated the stations on the SAS are. That's why I would do what I do, mainly because getting an endorsement from the company that runs the casino at Aqueduct (and likely putting money into those in turn who would support re-activating the Rockaway Beach Branch as subway) might actually help get the line re-built for real (still a longshot, but it would definitely help). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2082 Posted July 31, 2014 You wouldn't be able to run this train at more than 6 tph, so it wouldn't be very attractive to Rockaway riders who currently have more frequent service on the existing bus routes. Even at 6 tph, you'd be getting dangerously close to maxing out track capacity on the 6th Ave local. And if the and have problems in Lower Manhattan, Brooklyn riders on those lines would be SOL, because you'd no longer be able to reroute them via the Rutgers St tunnel, because they wouldn't be able to fit with the F, M and V trains on the tracks between W 4th and 2nd Ave. Now if a Rockaway V ran via QBL local and 63rd St tunnel to 2nd Ave, instead of 6th, then it could run more frequently and not impact , and rerouted / service. But not too frequently, because it would have to coexist with the and on the QB local tracks and merge with the express en route to the 63rd St tunnel. how many tph can operate via QBL under current signal capacities? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2083 Posted July 31, 2014 I wonder if anyone on these boards has stock in Genting, a private company? If I was a stockholder in said company and I wanted to bring business to my Aqueduct casino bus and van service from Manhattan, Brooklyn, and points east would be the way to go. How could any financial officer of the company justify spending money on a public enterprise(subway infrastructure) that would benefit non-casino goers more than any potential patronage I could possibly gain.? I don't believe there's any company around where the primary object isn't to maximize profit. A financial officer who signed off on such a plan would be removed from their position and sued by the stockholders. IF this pie-in-the-sky scheme were ever enacted what would happen if this private company failed and had to be liquidated? Guess who would be left holding the bag ? The , meaning you, the straphanger. We're talking about a casino paying for this infrastructure improvement while nearby casinos in AC are closing their doors or restructuring their finances. It's my opinion that if any part of this plan comes to pass it would have to be done by NYC, NYS, or the or some combination of those entities with substanstial federal backing. Just my opinion. Carry on. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2084 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) I wonder if anyone on these boards has stock in Genting, a private company? If I was a stockholder in said company and I wanted to bring business to my Aqueduct casino bus and van service from Manhattan, Brooklyn, and points east would be the way to go. How could any financial officer of the company justify spending money on a public enterprise(subway infrastructure) that would benefit non-casino goers more than any potential patronage I could possibly gain.? I don't believe there's any company around where the primary object isn't to maximize profit. A financial officer who signed off on such a plan would be removed from their position and sued by the stockholders. IF this pie-in-the-sky scheme were ever enacted what would happen if this private company failed and had to be liquidated? Guess who would be left holding the bag ? The , meaning you, the straphanger. We're talking about a casino paying for this infrastructure improvement while nearby casinos in AC are closing their doors or restructuring their finances. It's my opinion that if any part of this plan comes to pass it would have to be done by NYC, NYS, or the or some combination of those entities with substanstial federal backing. Just my opinion. Carry on. I did NOT mean it that way. I meant they would be a big help if they endorsed the rebuild. If they actually paid anything to help in it, it would be an added bonus. And when I meant putting money into, I meant campaign contributions to those who would support getting the Rockaway Beach Branch re-built. Edited July 31, 2014 by Wallyhorse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2085 Posted July 31, 2014 I did NOT mean it that way. I meant they would be a big help if they endorsed the rebuild. If they actually paid anything to help in it, it would be an added bonus. And when I meant putting money into, I meant campaign contributions to those who would support getting the Rockaway Beach Branch re-built. Putting the money where the mouth is… that's believable endorsement. Genting opening its mouth means nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2086 Posted July 31, 2014 As Genting is based in Malaysia, they likely still look at lower Manhattan as "The Financial District" even if it's not what it once was I'm sorry, excuse me? The rest of this was the same old exaggerations about what private companies are willing to do, but this is something else. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 31, 2014 Share #2087 Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) In this case, there's a very specific reason I would do it the way I would and that would be to potentially a company that would likely greatly benefit from a rebuild of the Rockaway Beach Branch into subway on board in endorsing it: Genting, which runs the casino at Aqueduct. As Genting is based in Malaysia, they likely still look at lower Manhattan as "The Financial District" even if it's not what it once was (as that area is now much more residential than even 15 years ago). Since the likely has to be brought back anyway once the SAS opens, that's why I would have that line run Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park, in large part so that Genting can see there being uptown service from The Financial District and you don't use the already-long for such service and I don't think Genting would as easily support it if you had the coming from Brooklyn because it does not serve "The Financial District" that this train would be serving. There is a domino effect of that, however, that leads to the other situations since the would also replace the along Queens Boulevard (to 63rd Street): Most notable of these would be the becoming the full-time Astoria branch (since the would be on Queens Boulevard) with the and as a result switching terminals so the has Coney Island Yard and the already has Concourse Yard. That's why I would do that, with the the second Astoria train on weekdays and a second SAS trains nights and weekends along an area that probably during those hours (upper east side) actually needs more service given how densely populated the stations on the SAS are. That's why I would do what I do, mainly because getting an endorsement from the company that runs the casino at Aqueduct (and likely putting money into those in turn who would support re-activating the Rockaway Beach Branch as subway) might actually help get the line re-built for real (still a longshot, but it would definitely help). Complete nonsense. First, I'm pretty sure Genting knows that Midtown is the City's primary business district. They're not stupid. They know what goes on here, business-wise. They'd have to, in order to, y'know, do business here. Second, what does it matter anyway. From "the Financial District," there's already the train. Resorts World already promotes the hell out of that and they don't have to pay the MTA one red cent for it. The service you keep proposing, plus the needlessly complicated shuffling around of the , and trains in Queens and Brooklyn are the furthest thing from their mind, because it would not benefit them. At all. Your proposal is another train from Lower Manhattan that would "take the long way" to get to Resorts World, just from a different direction than the . It really wouldn't be any faster than the , and might even be percieved as slower because it would be all local in Manhattan and Queens. Now, if they wanted a faster rail service from Midtown Manhattan, well, that's another story, because there really isn't one. But Genting won't be the ones to build it and they're currently not leaning on politicians or the MTA to do it or threaten to pack up and move. Edited July 31, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted August 1, 2014 Share #2088 Posted August 1, 2014 That may very well be true (and we know it is), but to a lot of people outside New York, Lower Manhattan is still "The Financial District" regardless of whether or not we know better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted August 1, 2014 Share #2089 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) how many tph can operate via QBL under current signal capacities? 30, so 15 + 8 is 23 tph on the 6th Ave local, leaving room for at most 7 tph. On Queens Blvd local, you have 8 tph + 8 tph, so that leaves room for 14 tph, but that many won't fit on 6th Ave local. Even if the still ran its old route, you'd really be pushing it to the limit on the 6th Ave local with 29 tph. That may very well be true (and we know it is), but to a lot of people outside New York, Lower Manhattan is still "The Financial District" regardless of whether or not we know better. No, only people whose minds are stuck in 1984 or earlier, or people who watch too many movies or TV shows that focus on New York's financial power think so. Most other people outside New York know it's Midtown, just like we do. Edited August 1, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyDose Posted August 1, 2014 Share #2090 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) If the casino really wanted to have direct subway service, they just fund the creation of a southbound Aqueduct Racetrack platform, or build an overpass from N-Conduit southbound to the casino parking lot, and have people walk to the enterance. No need to spend god knows how much rebuilding an abandoned ROW when there are cheaper alternatives. Edited August 1, 2014 by DailyDose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted August 1, 2014 Share #2091 Posted August 1, 2014 30, so 15 + 8 is 23 tph on the 6th Ave local, leaving room for at most 7 tph. On Queens Blvd local, you have 8 tph + 8 tph, so that leaves room for 14 tph, but that many won't fit on 6th Ave local. Even if the still ran its old route, you'd really be pushing it to the limit on the 6th Ave local with 29 tph. How much room is there on 8th Avenue? Could some operate there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted August 1, 2014 Share #2092 Posted August 1, 2014 (edited) How much room is there on 8th Avenue? Could some operate there? 8th Avenue local: 15 's + 6 's = 22 trains per hour (AM Rush) 8th Avenue local: 12 's + 6 's = 18 trains per hour (PM Rush) 8th Avenue express: 10 trains per hour (AM Rush) 8th Avenue express: 15 trains per hour (PM Rush) Edited August 1, 2014 by RollOver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted August 2, 2014 Share #2093 Posted August 2, 2014 (edited) #8 train: Lexington Av Local, between Throgs Neck in the Bronx and Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan at all times except late nights. Late nights between Throgs Neck and 125 St only. Bronx portion of the #8 will run on Willis Av, Melrose Av, 163 St, Hunts Point Av, and Lafayette Av, branching off the #6 line at Willis Av after 3 Av-138 St and ending at East Tremont Av. Underground portion: between 3 Av-138 St and the Bronx River. Elevated portion: between the Bronx River and East Tremont Av. Oak Point Yard in the Bronx will be converted from a freight yard into a subway yard. Station stops: Bronx: Throgs Neck Brush Av Castle Hill Av White Plains Rd Rosedale Av Soundview Park Bryant Av Hunts Point Av Prospect Av Trinity Av 161 St 156 St 3 Av-149 St 3 Av-138 St Manhattan: 125 St 116 St 110 St 103 St 96 St 86 St 77 St 68 St-Hunter College 59 St 51 St Grand Central-42 St 33 St 28 St 23 St 14 St-Union Square Astor Pl Bleecker St Spring St Canal St Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall Edited August 2, 2014 by lara8710 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyDose Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2094 Posted August 3, 2014 (edited) #8 train: Lexington Av Local, between Throgs Neck in the Bronx and Brooklyn Bridge in Manhattan at all times except late nights. Late nights between Throgs Neck and 125 St only. Bronx portion of the #8 will run on Willis Av, Melrose Av, 163 St, Hunts Point Av, and Lafayette Av, branching off the #6 line at Willis Av after 3 Av-138 St and ending at East Tremont Av. Underground portion: between 3 Av-138 St and the Bronx River. Elevated portion: between the Bronx River and East Tremont Av. Oak Point Yard in the Bronx will be converted from a freight yard into a subway yard. Station stops: Bronx: Throgs Neck Brush Av Castle Hill Av White Plains Rd Rosedale Av Soundview Park Bryant Av Hunts Point Av Prospect Av Trinity Av 161 St 156 St 3 Av-149 St 3 Av-138 St Manhattan: 125 St 116 St 110 St 103 St 96 St 86 St 77 St 68 St-Hunter College 59 St 51 St Grand Central-42 St 33 St 28 St 23 St 14 St-Union Square Astor Pl Bleecker St Spring St Canal St Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall You do realize Oak Point is a vital CSX yard, right? We can't ship all our garbage to Selkirk. Acquiring the yard from CSX, electrifying it, and making it approved by the FRA and New York State would be too costly, and would hurt the states economy, and never would be allowed. Edited August 3, 2014 by DailyDose 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2095 Posted August 3, 2014 But where will the trains on the #8 line be maintained and stored? There's not much room left at the Jerome and Livonia Yards, and sending trains there back and forth would be too impractical. The N and R trains in Queens and the 2 and 3 trains in Brooklyn switched terminals so each route can have direct access to a subway yard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R142A7565 Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2096 Posted August 3, 2014 I know it never going to happened extended the to Westchester County.. Is it Wakefield 241 street section it closer to Westchester County.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2097 Posted August 3, 2014 Just one little change to my original plan: the elevated portion of the #8 line will extend north past Lafayette Av onto East Tremont Av up until reaching the northbound service road of Bruckner Blvd. This segment of the line along East Tremont Av will serve as a layup for rush hour trains terminating at Throgs Neck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfanrod Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2098 Posted August 3, 2014 i know this may never happen for another 25 yrs but do you think the MTA can route the new 2nd ave line thru 3rd Ave in the Bronx to co op mall and end it along the s4th st already made station to utica ave line KP floyd bennet field and the other branch could possibly go to 4th ave with R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DailyDose Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2099 Posted August 3, 2014 i know this may never happen for another 25 yrs but do you think the MTA can route the new 2nd ave line thru 3rd Ave in the Bronx to co op mall and end it along the s4th st already made station to utica ave line KP floyd bennet field and the other branch could possibly go to 4th ave with R Not in our lifetime! They don't even have enough cash to finish Phase 2 of SAS! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfanrod Posted August 3, 2014 Share #2100 Posted August 3, 2014 i have a feeling phase 2 will be started soon after 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.