Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

35 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Are you proposing to reroute the  off the 8th Ave Line at West 4th St, then via the  to Broadway-Lafayette to accomplish all this? I can’t imagine how much of a choke point that’s going to be. And you wouldn’t be able to run this  very frequently because it would have to share tracks with the  and  between Broadway-Lafayette and West 4th, then the  upon returning to its current route. For a line that’s going to be on its own for most of the way, this isn’t an issue you want to have.

I’d much prefer to do a Utica Ave subway connected either to the Fulton St or Canarsie subways, where there is - potentially - capacity to accommodate another branch line (especially the Fulton St subway).

I have a feeling he means use the provisions off of 8th ave. local at Worth st, but I agree this is v. extra. 

As for Utica, the  there and send the  to New Lots -- there are provisions for that and capacity to do so. 

Fulton has very little capacity -- all trains have to merge at Hoyt, and if you must do something with the , it's better off splitting into a branch that goes down the Bay Ridge Branch as far as there is space for both it and freight tracks. 

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Are you proposing to reroute the  off the 8th Ave Line at West 4th St, then via the  to Broadway-Lafayette to accomplish all this? I can’t imagine how much of a choke point that’s going to be. And you wouldn’t be able to run this  very frequently because it would have to share tracks with the  and  between Broadway-Lafayette and West 4th, then the  upon returning to its current route. For a line that’s going to be on its own for most of the way, this isn’t an issue you want to have.

I’d much prefer to do a Utica Ave subway connected either to the Fulton St or Canarsie subways, where there is - potentially - capacity to accommodate another branch line (especially the Fulton St subway).

 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I have a feeling he means use the provisions off of 8th ave. local at Worth st, but I agree this is v. extra. 

As for Utica, the  there and send the  to New Lots -- there are provisions for that and capacity to do so. 

Fulton has very little capacity -- all trains have to merge at Hoyt, and if you must do something with the , it's better off splitting into a branch that goes down the Bay Ridge Branch as far as there is space for both it and freight tracks. 

The West 4th option was discussed in full when I have proposed having the operate as the Culver Express to Coney Island.   

If Worth Street as originally proposed can be built, that changes things some, especially if there were a way to have it join the Fulton Street Line East (railroad south) of Hoyt/Lafayette Avenue OR via Worth and having it come it at Hoyt-Schermerhorn on the as-present unused local track there and have IT serve as the Fulton Local to Euclid while the and  both run as an express.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/12/2017 at 11:45 AM, RR503 said:

I have a feeling he means use the provisions off of 8th ave. local at Worth st, but I agree this is v. extra. 

As for Utica, the  there and send the  to New Lots -- there are provisions for that and capacity to do so. 

Fulton has very little capacity -- all trains have to merge at Hoyt, and if you must do something with the , it's better off splitting into a branch that goes down the Bay Ridge Branch as far as there is space for both it and freight tracks. 

Fulton does have spare capacity. It’s the Cranberry St Tunnel that doesn’t because of the  and  trains merging at Hoyt. It’s too bad the only place those unused outer tracks at Hoyt  - the ones the  switches onto to run local in Brooklyn -  go is the Transit Museum. If only a connection could be made between those local tracks and another, underutilized B-Division tunnel, like the Montague St Tunnel. Then we’d be able to run the  local to/from Euclid in place of the , which could then be shifted to the express tracks and rerouted to a new Utica Ave subway. I imagine the only change need for the  would be to eliminate the five peak-direction Rockaway Park trains to make room for a more frequent-running , but those could be replaced with an extended  or  train from Queens Blvd. 

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Fulton does have spare capacity. It’s the Cranberry St Tunnel that doesn’t because of the  and  trains merging at Hoyt. It’s too bad the only place those unused outer tracks at Hoyt  - the ones the  switches onto to run local in Brooklyn -  go is the Transit Museum. If only a connection could be made between those local tracks and another, underutilized B-Division tunnel, like the Montague St Tunnel. Then we’d be able to run the  local to/from Euclid in place of the , which could then be shifted to the express tracks and rerouted to a new Utica Ave subway. I imagine the only change need for the  would be to eliminate the five peak-direction Rockaway Park trains to make room for a more frequent-running , but those could be replaced with an extended  or  train from Queens Blvd. 

I agree with connecting to the Fulton Local tracks. Montague may be hard you'd have to clear Joralemon even tho the BMT is a deeper bore the grade is also something to take into account along with the narrow streets of Brooklyn Heights.  IMO the  would be a better bet for the Fulton/Utica Local job.  Break off from A1,A2 between Smith and Boerum with a curve onto State Street with a downgrade. Court street bypassed.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Maybe you might not have to clear Joralemon. How about breaking off from A1, A2 between Smith and Boerum like you suggested, but instead of going south towards State, we go north towards Montague/Willoughby? Then we can make the connection to the  in between the Court and Jay St-MetroTech (formerly Lawrence St) stations. Boerum Place is a wide street at that point (just before it turns into Adams St and onto the Brooklyn Bridge), so I think running the  under Boerum at that point shouldn’t be problematic and the  platform at Borough Hall is close to the surface. You’d have to clear the southbound  track where it crosses under the  there. The northbound  would also have to clear the  at that point as well, but with Columbus Park over there, I don’t think it would be too tricky to build this Fulton-Montague connection. Running the  under State, then over to Schermerhorn, would be a great option too, but then we’d have to get Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS built first. 

[RailRunRob]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe you might not have to clear Joralemon. How about breaking off from A1, A2 between Smith and Boerum like you suggested, but instead of going south towards State, we go north towards Montague/Willoughby? Then we can make the connection to the  in between the Court and Jay St-MetroTech (formerly Lawrence St) stations. Boerum Place is a wide street at that point (just before it turns into Adams St and onto the Brooklyn Bridge), so I think running the  under Boerum at that point shouldn’t be problematic and the  platform at Borough Hall is close to the surface. You’d have to clear the southbound  track where it crosses under the  there. The northbound  would also have to clear the  at that point as well, but with Columbus Park over there, I don’t think it would be too tricky to build this Fulton-Montague connection. Running the  under State, then over to Schermerhorn, would be a great option too, but then we’d have to get Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS built first. 

Didn't think about it that way. But that could work as well make's sense with Boerum pretty straight shot.  I was thinking more Henry street area for whatever reason. Duh, I didn't see that. That's an easier option.

[RR503]

56 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Maybe you might not have to clear Joralemon. How about breaking off from A1, A2 between Smith and Boerum like you suggested, but instead of going south towards State, we go north towards Montague/Willoughby? Then we can make the connection to the  in between the Court and Jay St-MetroTech (formerly Lawrence St) stations. Boerum Place is a wide street at that point (just before it turns into Adams St and onto the Brooklyn Bridge), so I think running the  under Boerum at that point shouldn’t be problematic and the  platform at Borough Hall is close to the surface. You’d have to clear the southbound  track where it crosses under the  there. The northbound  would also have to clear the  at that point as well, but with Columbus Park over there, I don’t think it would be too tricky to build this Fulton-Montague connection. Running the  under State, then over to Schermerhorn, would be a great option too, but then we’d have to get Phases 3 and 4 of the SAS built first. 

That’ll be one hell of a grade. Remember that the northbound track will have to split while over the  , dive under the  , go further down (as you say) to clear the  tunnels, and then pop up to merge by Court St — whose platform ends under its eponymous street. I’d love the rollercoaster, but T/Os will hate it, and itll be one hell of a construction job. 

I really like the idea in theory, just got some practical concerns. 

Edited October 13, 2017 by RR503

[BreeddekalbL]

If you extens the E train as it was proposed via lirr row will it elimnate the need for those E trains to go to 179, and if possible would it bw possible to build a pocket track after jamaica center after the station in the proposed extenaion?

[bobtehpanda]

10 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If you extens the E train as it was proposed via lirr row will it elimnate the need for those E trains to go to 179, and if possible would it bw possible to build a pocket track after jamaica center after the station in the proposed extenaion?

Yes and no, in that order. The devil is in the details for the first one, and depends completely on the design of the southern terminal.

The tracks already exist past York College, so you probably couldn't fit a pocket track anywhere near there.

[BreeddekalbL]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Yes and no, in that order. The devil is in the details for the first one, and depends completely on the design of the southern terminal.

The tracks already exist past York College, so you probably couldn't fit a pocket track anywhere near there.

Ok and i thought that the plans had it taking the diverging tracks that the lirr had immediately after jamaica not the one at hillside after the college

[subwaykid256]

Im just wondering if theres a possibility we could, extend the E past WTC,  Use the South 4 St connection, also I'm using the idea that was proposed to run a line via Stuyvesant Av to get to Utica.

Edited October 15, 2017 by subwaykid256

[CenSin]

7 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

Im just wondering if theres a possibility we could, extend the E past WTC,  Use the South 4 St connection, also I'm using the idea that was proposed to run a line via Stuyvesant Av to get to Utica.

The provisions for the line would preclude serving Chambers Street as the extension was planned to run under Worth Street. The bellmouths are just south of Canal Street. From Worth Street, the line would continue via East Broadway, intersecting with the 6 Avenue Line at Rutgers Street. The East Broadway station has provisions for an upper level platform for such a line.

[subwaykid256]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

The provisions for the line would preclude serving Chambers Street as the extension was planned to run under Worth Street. The bellmouths are just south of Canal Street. From Worth Street, the line would continue via East Broadway, intersecting with the 6 Avenue Line at Rutgers Street. The East Broadway station has provisions for an upper level platform for such a line.

Hmm okay. I'll edit my line to do this instead and probably create a shuttle that goes from South 4 - 2 Av

[subwaykid256]

So how about having the stop at

Centre - Lafayette Sts/ Worth St Transfer for the 

Chatham Sq/ East Broadway Transfer for 

Rutgers St/ East Broadway Transfer for 

Grand St/East Broadway

Brooklyn

Bedford Av/ South 4 St

Marcy Av/South 4 St

Union Av/ South 4 St Transfer for 

[RailRunRob]

On 10/13/2017 at 6:39 PM, RR503 said:

That’ll be one hell of a grade. Remember that the northbound track will have to split while over the  , dive under the  , go further down (as you say) to clear the  tunnels, and then pop up to merge by Court St — whose platform ends under its eponymous street. I’d love the rollercoaster, but T/Os will hate it, and itll be one hell of a construction job. 

I really like the idea in theory, just got some practical concerns. 

5

The breakoff should happen a few hundred feet down track beyond Jay-Smith street shouldn't be an issue. Just before the Transit Museum (Court Street). Maybe a clean break with a grade crossing think South Ferry new and old breakpoint. Your right it's quite a grade to clear the Eastern Parkway Line is double leveled at that point. It's about 700 feet from Schermerhorn to Fulton at a 4% grade that's about 28 feet depth added that may be able to cover it maybe not as crazy afterall.  Could put the tunnel around 45-50 feet. 3.5% could work I don't have the exact depths for current lines. Should be able to connect clean to the  around  Willoughby Plaza just past the Eastern Parkway cross under. It would be a task to build but it's doable IMO. (BMT spec's below)

Edited October 15, 2017 by RailRunRob

[RR503]

Yeah I am more worried about the underpinning etc that will have to happen than anything else. Also remember the  at that point is in a cast iron tube -- I'm not an engineer but wouldn't that be much more difficult to modify/add a connection to than a cut-and-cover stretch? 

BTW nice diagram -- where did you get it? 

[RailRunRob]

9 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yeah I am more worried about the underpinning etc that will have to happen than anything else. Also remember the  at that point is in a cast iron tube -- I'm not an engineer but wouldn't that be much more difficult to modify/add a connection to than a cut-and-cover stretch? 

BTW nice diagram -- where did you get it? 

Your right forgot about the tunnel config. They'll have to cut the tube and create a box in essence. Oh, I have a few complete lines. I got em from a friend at MTACC a few years back.  The BMT diagram's for the most part are from the mid 60's .  Even got my hands on the Myrtle from Bridge-Jay to Metropolitan.. I can put them on google drive share a link if you like.  I have to dig for the IRT ones .  

Edited October 15, 2017 by RailRunRob

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Your right forgot about the tunnel config. They'll have to cut the tube and create a box in essence. Oh, I have a few complete lines. I got em from a friend at MTACC a few years back.  The BMT diagram's for the most part are from the mid 60's .  Even got my hands on the Myrtle from Bridge-Jay to Metropolitan.. I can put them on google drive share a link if you like.  I have to dig for the IRT ones .  

That would be spectacular if it is at all possible!!

Not only will I use them, but I'll show them to my bosses at the MTA who have been searching for years for this kind of thing.

Thank you so much!!

[RailRunRob]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

That would be spectacular if it is at all possible!!

Not only will I use them, but I'll show them to my bosses at the MTA who have been searching for years for this kind of thing.

Thank you so much!!

Yep, no worries.  Happy someone could appreciate them. Haha, I have one as my desktop background on my laptop people are always tripped out by them. A lot people think there diagrams of computer circuitry lol! 

Edited October 15, 2017 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

3 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

The breakoff should happen a few hundred feet down track beyond Jay-Smith street shouldn't be an issue. Just before the Transit Museum (Court Street). Maybe a clean break with a grade crossing think South Ferry new and old breakpoint. Your right it's quite a grade to clear the Eastern Parkway Line is double leveled at that point. It's about 700 feet from Schermerhorn to Fulton at a 4% grade that's about 28 feet depth added that may be able to cover it maybe not as crazy afterall.  Could put the tunnel around 45-50 feet. 3.5% could work I don't have the exact depths for current lines. Should be able to connect clean to the  around  Willoughby Plaza just past the Eastern Parkway cross under. It would be a task to build but it's doable IMO. (BMT spec's below)

This should give insight on the IND side. @RR503 Your point still stands on the Tubes on the Montague side.

 

[CenSin]

6 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

So how about having the stop at

Centre - Lafayette Sts/ Worth St Transfer for the 

Chatham Sq/ East Broadway Transfer for 

Rutgers St/ East Broadway Transfer for 

Grand St/East Broadway

Brooklyn

Bedford Av/ South 4 St

Marcy Av/South 4 St

Union Av/ South 4 St Transfer for 

Phase 1 would probably end at Grand Street with some of the trains rerouted there. On the Brooklyn side, the first stop will likely be Berry Street, followed by Marcy Avenue. Berry Street will probably be under Broadway, but from there, the IND 2 System plans seem crazy considering the development over the proposed right-of-way. They will probably have to capture the Jamaica Line temporarily and plan replace it at a later date.

[LGA Link N Train]

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

[Around the Horn]

7 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

That would be ridiculously expensive but worth it IMO.

[biGC323232]

10 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

I dont understand why the mta never built a subway to staten island...but yes good idea....gold mine

[MysteriousBtrain]

Stealing this from the random thoughts to prepare for a brain exercise:

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

By doing that, you’re bringing back Queens boulevard of yore — an overcrowded, expressophilic mess. The  going to 63rd takes half of exp service to a less busy corridor, forcing riders to at least consider the local. Putting it back on 53 and the  on 63 not only gives riders little reason to stay on the local destination-wise, but also eliminates xfers to the  and  from half of trains serving QB local west of Roosevelt.  

That will once again create massive platform crowds, demonic express trains, and underutilized locals, all for what benefit? Putting things back “the way they should be”? Creating variety on 63? There’s a reason the current service pattern exists, and it’s a good one.

This is by no means serious, but here's a way I would reconstruct the B division in today's standards:

- as well as same

slightly less service+no 179 St service (Yeah yeah Jamaica and other forms of ridership can't handle a loss but again this is an exercise)

would run via 53 St at all times. Late nights via 63 St and local.

runs between Forest Hills and Metropolitan Av via 63 St at all times. Late nights unchanged.

between 179 St and Coney Island via Broadway/63 St/QBL exp. Some rush trips via 2 Av still.

unchanged

late night service cut to Atlantic Ave via express north of 36 St.

Astoria to Bay Parkway via local. Short turns and all late night trips to Whitehall Street. (If possible, maybe merge late night and service)