Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[darkstar8983]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If you just add more  trains, then you’d have even more trains backing up the local tracks waiting to get into 71st - Continental. And you’d be over-serving the Sea Beach Line with all the extra  trains that would be needed to make up for the loss of the . 

Seems like an awfully complicated solution for 2nd Ave train frequency. Cutting midday Brighton Local service down to just 6 tph isn’t going to sit well with Brighton Line riders.  

Or the  can be kept at 8 min frequency. It was just to make sure headway’s are even in manhattan (something that is not the case at this time)

 

example:

 train Broadway Express every 10 mins

comes at 0:00, 0:10 0:20, 0:30, 0:40, 0:50

 train Broadway express every 8 mins

comes at 0:04, 0:12, 0:22, 0:28, 0:36, 0:44, 0:52, 1:02, 1:08, 1:16, 1:24 1:32, 1:42, 1:48, 1:56, 2:04

you end up with uneven frequency total on the Broadway express currently, If you implement 10 min frequency you could have the  come at 5, 15, 25, 35, 45, and 55 past and headway’s will be even.

 

alternatively, you could in the future proposal increase the  to 8 mins but then the  on Sea Beach would not be necessary at that point (overserving Sea Beach)

[darkstar8983]

I would have personally preferred keeping the current Broadway Setup but then would have heard the backlash and the “  train is causing the clog up on Broadway and does not allow for service increases due to the merge between express and local” rants. 

I had proposed an  split similar to how the  does it in Queens but the track capacity does not allow for such a split of service to be effective at handling crowds either on 2 Av or in Astoria. So lo and behold, the previous posting I made yesterday was born. Astoria keeps the familiar  , the  remains a weekday service and a supplement on both Sea Beach/4 Av and on Broadway/2 Av

[R68OnBroadway]

Just a question: Do you think that moving the Broadway merge to 57th would help? Brooklyn-bound  trains won't have to slow down to switch as the curve from 60th street is tight. In turn though, this could delay  trains as they use sail into 57th. As for northbound I don't really see any problems.

Edited December 4, 2017 by R68OnBroadway

[darkstar8983]

6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Just a question: Do you think that moving the Broadway merge to 57th would help? Brooklyn-bound  trains won't have to slow down to switch as the curve from 60th street is tight. In turn though, this could delay  trains as they use sail into 57th. As for northbound I don't really see any problems.

I think the problem is the proximity of the station to the switch, in that no northbound  trains would be able to platform at 57 St- 7 Av while the  crosses over. Also 49 St has too much ridership for just the  to handle.

southbound would present a similar issue with the  forced to stop within the curve under Central Park .

 

 

i think a similar issue was present at Essex St when the  platforms bound for Metropolitan Av. The Jamaica Center  train could not platform at Essex St to facilitate the cross-platform transfer. I don’t know if this issue has been resolved yet.

Edited December 4, 2017 by darkstar8983

[R68OnBroadway]

45 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

I think the problem is the proximity of the station to the switch, in that no northbound  trains would be able to platform at 57 St- 7 Av while the  crosses over. Also 49 St has too much ridership for just the  to handle.

southbound would present a similar issue with the  forced to stop within the curve under Central Park .

 

 

The switches shouldn't interfere as they don't pass through the platform or anything, and usually when the  stops on the northbound side there is still about 6-10 ft of platform by the northern end staircase. If this were somehow an issue though, there are still diamond crossings south of the station. 

As for 49th, there still is the   during busy hours. The  will still stop there on weekends and late nights, just not during rush hrs and middays. Evenings could be adjusted based on ridership.

For the  issue, I would give the  priority, and the  could hold on the southbound track. Considering that the  goes rather fast down Broadway, it would be more efficient to hold the  and let the  pass than vice versa.

[bobtehpanda]

On 12/3/2017 at 7:54 AM, CDTA said:

This is a bit out there but I wanna know what you guys think

So I was thinking of running the Flushing Express track into a new tunnel going down 34th st, then, when it gets to Hudson Yards, it loops back around and goes down 34th heading East on a second parallel track, in the morning, and reverse in the evening. A new yard would be built at the ConEd site to store the trains during the mid-day since the whole thing is technically only one track (I don't see why ConEd couldn't just build whatever they needed to on top of the yard). Doing this would double capacity on the Flushing Line since the local can now run a full 30TPH, and the express can run a full 30 TPH all while only needing new track up to Queens Plaza. Plus, since the 34th st section is technically double-tracked, when the express isn't running you can still operate the section independently as a 34th st Crosstown line. AND since the tunneling would be all new construction, you can build it to B-division standards for that little bit of extra capacity since the elevated is already built to B-division standards. You'd also need a huge expansion of Corona Yard, but seeing how right now the surrounding area is all surface parking lots that shouldn't be too difficult.

The entire issue with running service like this is that the 30TPH in one direction has to come from somewhere, so you need a really huge storage yard at both ends of the third track.

[BreeddekalbL]

To those in the rbb thread who proposed sending the  up the L.I.E. what will replace the at from woodhaven to 71st 

[Lance]

I'd imagine it would be expanded service during the daytime hours.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That too could be an issue...even more so than if the  were to be extended onto the RBB. Because in the case of the  via RBB, the  with its 480-foot trains, would be left as the only service at one QB local station, 67th Ave. In the case of extending the  via the L.I.E., two QB local stations would definitely be affected, 67th Ave and the much busier 63rd Drive. Possibly three stations, depending whether the  turns off QB east or west of Woodhaven. 

Presumably, the  would be upgraded to 7-day service. Much better than having to send the  or down the local tracks between 71st and Roosevelt on weekends to cover for the . Or Woodhaven, if that station were to be converted to an express stop and have crossover switches installed.

Edited December 11, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue
Additional info

[RR503]

I mean, if you’re worried about train length, you could just send the  up the LIE... That also has the benefit of not lengthening the insane  route..

[Coney Island Av]

18 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

To those in the rbb thread who proposed sending the  up the L.I.E. what will replace the at from woodhaven to 71st 

I think an extension of  service would cover Forest Hills, because the RBB is a line in waiting. If both are built, nothing will cover 67 Av. 

[BreeddekalbL]

8 hours ago, Lance said:

I'd imagine it would be expanded service during the daytime hours.

Thats for if the rbb and LIE HHE line were built where the takes the rbb while the takes the L.I.E hhe line

Edited December 12, 2017 by BreeddekalbL

[bobtehpanda]

On 12/10/2017 at 6:55 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

To those in the rbb thread who proposed sending the  up the L.I.E. what will replace the at from woodhaven to 71st 

Are those stations really so busy that they need two local services?

Personally, I think LIE subway service is just never going to happen because it's way too complex to build; how exactly should it weave through the Woodhaven/Queens Blvd/LIE interchange?

[BreeddekalbL]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Personally, I think LIE subway service is just never going to happen because it's way too complex to build; how exactly should it weave through the Woodhaven/Queens Blvd/LIE interchange?

The way i would is dive it before junction blvd

[IAlam]

Quick Question cause I'm almost never on this thread. But has anyone ever suggested   combined strip maps for the R143? It seem there is enough space for both lines to use that strip map.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by IAlam

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The point of doing a combined strip map is if the lines on the map actually run on the same tracks for a significant portion of their routes, like the  and  do.  The  and  only have one transfer point at Broadway Junction and they don't share any tracks with each other, so a combined strip map for them wouldn’t be worth doing.

Now, if you wanted to run a part-time service from Canarsie via the Williamsburgh Bridge to the 6th Ave line using R143s, then you could have a combined  strip map. Because then you’d have the  and  sharing tracks/stations from Rockaway Parkway to Broadway Junction (with the  stopping on the  platform at Bway Jct). Of course, that all depends on track capacity on the Willy B and 6th Ave, how many cars would be available for the service and, of course, what the forecasted ridership might be. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[IAlam]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The point of doing a combined strip map is if the lines on the map actually run on the same tracks for a significant portion of their routes, like the  and  do.  The  and  only have one transfer point at Broadway Junction and they don't share any tracks with each other, so a combined strip map for them wouldn’t be worth doing.

Now, if you wanted to run a part-time service from Canarsie via the Williamsburgh Bridge to the 6th Ave line using R143s, then you could have a combined  strip map. Because then you’d have the  and  sharing tracks/stations from Rockaway Parkway to Broadway Junction (with the  stopping on the  platform at Bway Jct). Of course, that all depends on track capacity on the Willy B and 6th Ave, how many cars would be available for the service and, of course, what the forecasted ridership might be. 

The idea would be to have both strip maps side by side. Although no portions of the strip map would be shared, it seems there is enough space to fit both lines there.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That's confusing. Especially because the  and  have a transfer point at Broadway Junction and both have separate stations at Halsey and Lorimer streets and Myrtle Ave, so all four of those station names would have to be printed twice.

Edited December 14, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[IAlam]

On 12/14/2017 at 4:28 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That's confusing. Especially because the  and  have a transfer point at Broadway Junction and both have separate stations at Halsey and Lorimer streets and Myrtle Ave, so all four of those station names would have to be printed twice.

It doesn't make sense to have the R143's operate on the  without a proper strip map to accommodate it. On the  strip map they have a lot of stops with the same name in Manhattan. If it works fine over there, I don't see why it's an issue for the . 

[Lance]

The problem with this comparison is that the and share quite a large number of stops in both the Bronx and in Brooklyn, which allows for a shared line map. This is not the case as it pertains to the and lines. The only stop that is shared by the two lines is at Broadway Junction. A combined line map would not be possible. In fact, it would have to be in essence two separate line maps on one sheet. It would likely fit on the line map matrix, but I cannot see the benefit here. There are in fact so few 143s that operate in service that I feel it's not worth the effort. Perhaps if the 143s car assignment was actually split between the and lines, I could see the value, but this is not the case. These cars pop up on the as often as the 160s do on the  line.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Exactly, and those R143s (along with the R32s and 42s) won't be on the  for much longer anyway once there are enough R179s in service as well.

[Jemorie]

On 12/4/2017 at 2:30 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If you just add more  trains, then you’d have even more trains backing up the local tracks waiting to get into 71st - Continental. And you’d be over-serving the Sea Beach Line with all the extra  trains that would be needed to make up for the loss of the . 

Seems like an awfully complicated solution for 2nd Ave train frequency. Cutting midday Brighton Local service down to just 6 tph isn’t going to sit well with Brighton Line riders.  

I don't think the Brighton Line is that busy during the non-rush hours.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It may not be, but I don't think Brighton Line ridership is so light during middays that it can justify only 6 tph.

[P3F]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It may not be, but I don't think Brighton Line ridership is so light during middays that it can justify only 6 tph.

It gets enough ridership for the to run the there at the time, even though it doesn't run to Concourse.

[CDTA]

Here's a thought. What about connecting PATH from WTC to Atlantic Terminal, and up the Atlantic Branch? This would be much more useful than the Atlantic Branch in its current form, and it'd allow people from NJ to get a one seat ride to a new office hub, Downtown Brooklyn. You don't have to do any work on the Atlantic Branch itself because PATH is FRA compliant, and you could easily from there expand it to JFK, providing for the first time a one seat ride to downtown, Floral Park, and Valley Stream, not only providing eastern Queens with vital rail service but also allowing the LIRR to speed up service and focus on its main job of commuting customers from LI. You wouldn't have to really do any work either aside from JFK because again, PATH is FRA compliant so you don't need to do anything special for them to run.