Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Quill Depot]

Half trains down via express, and then the runs at 6tph and the at 10tph. So another 6 TPH wouldn't be so bad all in all.

[Quill Depot]

 

Another proposal: Tirboro RX from Brighton to ENY. This might be a little insane to say but the line could run with MNRR/LIRR cars modified to have less seats and more standing space. It would connect the Brighton to Flatbush to the to ENY. It doesn't even have to share trackage with the too. Needs a third rail, and retrofitted tracks. Possible future extension could be possible west to West End where the train would run on Sea Beach. But the shitty most expensive part would be elevators.

[Wallyhorse]

Trains would switch over at Jay St, Wallyhorse. Half of trains rush hour only.

I thought Jay was a non-starter before of track switches there interfering.   In your format you could have the and swap terminals with perhaps a limited number of trains during rush hours going via West 4th as well.

 

I would then have the to Coney Island and to Church Avenue so those there have an 8th Avenue option.

[Armandito]

The 8th Av terminal currently ends at bumper blocks, which limits track capacity on the line. I suggest extending the tracks all the way to 10th Av for train storage during rush hours. This would increase track capacity on the line; the MTA once proposed a similar move at the Flatbush Av terminal in 1989.

[biGC323232]

And where  trains gonna terminate...

[Quill Depot]

Great idea Wally!

And where trains gonna terminate...

Church Ave, along with the at Church

[bobtehpanda]

and of course, the debate about whether or not Culver actually needs this amount of service is ignored... 

[Wallyhorse]

and of course, the debate about whether or not Culver actually needs this amount of service is ignored... 

We were talking about Park Slope with the and both terminating at Church Avenue while the or replaced the south of Church on Culver to Coney Island.  Park Slope would have the same service but passengers at Express stations would have 8th Avenue service (and with the , lower Manhattan service) they don't currently have.

[bobtehpanda]

We were talking about Park Slope with the and both terminating at Church Avenue while the or replaced the south of Church on Culver to Coney Island.  Park Slope would have the same service but passengers at Express stations would have 8th Avenue service (and with the , lower Manhattan service) they don't currently have.

 

Riders have a step-free transfer via Jay St and another transfer at West 4th to the 8th Avenue Line, and there are already plenty of , , and trains in Brooklyn. If people were whining about the being crushloaded in Brooklyn, I'd see the justification for sending 21 Manhattan TPH down the Culver, but crowding on the Culver Line is nowhere near anything that could justify that.

[Armandito]

Until 1976, trains used to serve Brooklyn as a local, but was discontinued since then. Why was it discontinued?

Edited September 11, 2014 by lara8710

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Half E trains down via express, and then the C runs at 6tph and the A at 10tph. So another 6 TPH wouldn't be so bad all in all.

The , the and half the in the Cranberry St Tunnel? That would be one big, long bottleneck, especially because the runs more than 10 tph during the rush (17 tph, I think, including the Rock Park specials). Are you planning to reduce service?

 

I thought Jay was a non-starter before of track switches there interfering.   In your format you could have the C and E swap terminals with perhaps a limited number of E trains during rush hours going via West 4th as well.

 

I would then have the E to Coney Island and F to Church Avenue so those there have an 8th Avenue option.

And then those who live below Church Ave have no option but 8th Ave, unless they want to transfer at Church, 7th Ave or Jay? For the 6th Ave service they once enjoyed direct access to?

 

Swap the and terminals? So have the ...ah, never mind! This is way too complicated, unnecessary and it won't fly.

 

At least my plan from the SAS thread keeps all the Culver-to-Manhattan service going via the Rutgers St Tunnel and the 6th Ave Local. Right to the center of Manhattan, which is what Culver el riders have had for the past 60 years.

 

local to/from Church - 14 tph.

express to/from Coney Island - 6 tph. After Lex/63rd, turns northbound onto 2nd Ave to provide extra service there and to provide riders with another option if their commuting destination is west of Park Ave and north of 34th St. Runs weekdays 6 am - 8 pm. extended to Coney Island when doesn't operate.

stays as is with 8 tph. Yes, it's a tight squeeze, but it's doable. No conflict with any of the 8th Ave lines at the West 4th St junction and no conflict with the 6th Ave express tracks.

Edited September 11, 2014 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

I thought Jay was a non-starter before of track switches there interfering.   In your format you could have the and swap terminals with perhaps a limited number of trains during rush hours going via West 4th as well.

 

I would then have the to Coney Island and to Church Avenue so those there have an 8th Avenue option.

That's very ironic, considering all of the interference your proposals create.

[CenSin]

Here's a radical proposal that actually makes a difference: rebuild terminals with more capacity.

 

It's absolutely stunning that trains often take longer to wait outside of a terminal than for a person to simply walk there (if they could get off the train). Less often, there's also the conga line of trains stretching several stations before the terminal. This is going to be a bigger problem with the in the future as long as the never sees the light of day (not that it would literally, being a completely underground route). In fact, it's a problem with all trains headed to Coney Island as far as I've experienced, and probably applies to the ends of other lines.

 

I'm going to go so far as say we need to add a third track to terminals with only two (and another platform for the extra track). The could, in fact, use even more than three given its rush hour frequency.

 

The proposed Phase 2 for the Second Avenue Subway had better plan for a three-track terminal.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Well, since they haven't built Lexington/125th yet, maybe now's the time to plan it as a three-track terminal. At least it's already planned to have tail tracks, although that will require it to be built pretty far down given that the existing 125th & Lex station has    and trains stopping on two levels.

[itmaybeokay]

Here's a radical proposal that actually makes a difference: rebuild terminals with more capacity.

 

It's absolutely stunning that trains often take longer to wait outside of a terminal than for a person to simply walk there (if they could get off the train). Less often, there's also the conga line of trains stretching several stations before the terminal. This is going to be a bigger problem with the in the future as long as the never sees the light of day (not that it would literally, being a completely underground route). In fact, it's a problem with all trains headed to Coney Island as far as I've experienced, and probably applies to the ends of other lines.

 

I'm going to go so far as say we need to add a third track to terminals with only two (and another platform for the extra track). The could, in fact, use even more than three given its rush hour frequency.

 

The proposed Phase 2 for the Second Avenue Subway had better plan for a three-track terminal.

 

I feel like a properly configured 2-track stub terminal can turn more trains than a 3 track terminal. Maybe it's just perception, but I think the added complexity of the interlocking for a three track terminal actually causes more delays. (E.G. a train departing from one track can actually cause the other 2 tracks to be blocked). I'm gonna look up Main St's capacity versus the South Ferry stub terminal. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Until 1976, trains used to serve Brooklyn as a local, but was discontinued since then. Why was it discontinued?

Too many trains, too long of a route (the  went to the Rockaways back then) and not enough riders.

[Quill Depot]

The really could just use a loop. I think half trains brings it down to somewhere around 24tph which seems alright.

[Union Tpke]

Here's a radical proposal that actually makes a difference: rebuild terminals with more capacity.

 

It's absolutely stunning that trains often take longer to wait outside of a terminal than for a person to simply walk there (if they could get off the train). Less often, there's also the conga line of trains stretching several stations before the terminal. This is going to be a bigger problem with the in the future as long as the never sees the light of day (not that it would literally, being a completely underground route). In fact, it's a problem with all trains headed to Coney Island as far as I've experienced, and probably applies to the ends of other lines.

 

I'm going to go so far as say we need to add a third track to terminals with only two (and another platform for the extra track). The could, in fact, use even more than three given its rush hour frequency.

 

The proposed Phase 2 for the Second Avenue Subway had better plan for a three-track terminal.

The jamaica center switches need to be put closer to the station so it could be a functional terminal, so more than 12 TPH can terminate there.

[bobtehpanda]

Here's a radical proposal that actually makes a difference: rebuild terminals with more capacity.

 

It's absolutely stunning that trains often take longer to wait outside of a terminal than for a person to simply walk there (if they could get off the train). Less often, there's also the conga line of trains stretching several stations before the terminal. This is going to be a bigger problem with the in the future as long as the never sees the light of day (not that it would literally, being a completely underground route). In fact, it's a problem with all trains headed to Coney Island as far as I've experienced, and probably applies to the ends of other lines.

 

I'm going to go so far as say we need to add a third track to terminals with only two (and another platform for the extra track). The could, in fact, use even more than three given its rush hour frequency.

 

The proposed Phase 2 for the Second Avenue Subway had better plan for a three-track terminal.

 

Most of the terminal issues have to do with a lack of tail tracks; where trains are slow entering a terminal, that's because the bumper blocks are at or very close to the station and they have to approach slowly. If trains were to go at full speed and happened to overrun the station, they'd end up jacknifed by the bumper blocks, so they have to approach slowly.

 

In the case of Stillwell, it's a bit different; the tracks for the and are yard leads. Where tail tracks exist, usually trains are reversed on them, since it allows for all the slow reversing stuff to be done outside the station while another train pulls in. If that were to occur at Stillwell, they'd end up blocking the yard, so that can't occur.

 

Three-track terminals are actually not super-efficient for the reasons itmaybeokay stated above.

[realizm]

Most of the terminal issues have to do with a lack of tail tracks; where trains are slow entering a terminal, that's because the bumper blocks are at or very close to the station and they have to approach slowly. If trains were to go at full speed and happened to overrun the station, they'd end up jacknifed by the bumper blocks, so they have to approach slowly.

 

In the case of Stillwell, it's a bit different; the tracks for the and are yard leads. Where tail tracks exist, usually trains are reversed on them, since it allows for all the slow reversing stuff to be done outside the station while another train pulls in. If that were to occur at Stillwell, they'd end up blocking the yard, so that can't occur.

 

Three-track terminals are actually not super-efficient for the reasons itmaybeokay stated above.

 

Yes very true. I will add that in case of issues with heightened dwell times due to congestion at terminals where it comes to turnarounds, the SAS addresses this very issue by exactly what you are pointing out: tail tracks.

 

The tail tracks in the vicinity of the proposed two pocket terminal stations will be constructed right before the double-radial curve @ 125th Street, also at Hanover Square. The same tail tracks will also serve as provisions for Brooklyn expansion also for Bronx expansion and is clearly evident in the publications released by the MTA to the public. 

 

Certainty the MTA knows what they are doing in regards to mega-projects and future expansion pulling a page out of the book of the Dual Contracts and IND masterminds.

 

Edit: ...and now I realize I posted in the wrong thread thinking this was the SAS thread, but yeah it still applies.

Edited September 11, 2014 by realizm

[CenSin]

I feel like a properly configured 2-track stub terminal can turn more trains than a 3 track terminal. Maybe it's just perception, but I think the added complexity of the interlocking for a three track terminal actually causes more delays. (E.G. a train departing from one track can actually cause the other 2 tracks to be blocked). I'm gonna look up Main St's capacity versus the South Ferry stub terminal.

A properly-configured three-track terminal can also turn more trains than a properly-configured two-track terminal. Consider this layout:

Out of all cases, the only time when a train has to be held outside the terminal is when all three tracks are occupied, and this case is minimized because there is one additional track. In all other cases, trains will glide in and out of the terminal free of interference.

 

For Second Avenue, cut-and-cover construction appears to be one of the planned options for 121 Street all the way to 125 Street. If so, the third track could be added by digging the center portion of the tunnel one level deeper.

[MTA Dude]

I feel like a properly configured 2-track stub terminal can turn more trains than a 3 track terminal. Maybe it's just perception, but I think the added complexity of the interlocking for a three track terminal actually causes more delays. (E.G. a train departing from one track can actually cause the other 2 tracks to be blocked). I'm gonna look up Main St's capacity versus the South Ferry stub terminal. 

 

Yeah...

[CenSin]

Yes very true. I will add that in case of issues with heightened dwell times due to congestion at terminals where it comes to turnarounds, the SAS addresses this very issue by exactly what you are pointing out: tail tracks.

 

The tail tracks in the vicinity of the proposed two pocket terminal stations will be constructed right before the double-radial curve @ 125th Street, also at Hanover Square. The same tail tracks will also serve as provisions for Brooklyn expansion also for Bronx expansion and is clearly evident in the publications released by the MTA to the public. 

 

Certainty the MTA knows what they are doing in regards to mega-projects and future expansion pulling a page out of the book of the Dual Contracts and IND masterminds.

 

Edit: ...and now I realize I posted in the wrong thread thinking this was the SAS thread, but yeah it still applies.

Not only the speed of the trains going into the terminal or where they are waiting, but often the trains heading towards the terminal are waiting until the next train is scheduled to leave the terminal. Due to train bunching and delays, the wait is often a whole train headway before the terminal becomes free for the next arriving train. The third track solves a problem that neither tail tracks nor switch placement can—letting trains pull into the terminal sooner.

[realizm]

Not only the speed of the trains going into the terminal or where they are waiting, but often the trains heading towards the terminal are waiting until the next train is scheduled to leave the terminal. Due to train bunching and delays, the wait is often a whole train headway before the terminal becomes free for the next arriving train. The third track solves a problem that neither tail tracks nor switch placement can—letting trains pull into the terminal sooner.

 

I guess the main reason why the MTA didnt consider 3 track terminals after all is because they dont want to pay for it. Thats been on the MTA menu nowadays from the 7 extansion forward, save dollars if it even means knocking entire proposed stations out of the blueprints for the sake of construction costs. Which I do not understand with the case of the SAS, isnt the project federally funded?

 

Otherwise yes I agree this would be a good proposal but the MTA decided not to adopt this approach. Its all about the money I suppose.

[Empole]

As an aside: wouldn't adding tail tracks to Flatbush require either rebuilding the station with an island platform or constructing an underpass between the two platforms?