Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

A few things to note:

-Rogers doesn't justify swapping the  and  equipment because the former has a lot of overcrowding problems, and is the longest IRT line in the system. Putting the R62As on the  would only worsen these issues. Plus, the latter commonly gets rerouted to Lexington. IMO Lexington CBTC will have to wait, considering those R62As on the  will stay there until retirement. They were put on the  because it would yield less harm when compared to putting them on the more-busier express . 

-The  on Brighton I'll explain later in a proposal for deinterlining Dekalb. Rogers was the main focus in my analysis, not Dekalb. 

-The  runs local east of Franklin because the bellmouths for Utica only branch off of the local tracks. It would be more complex to build such connection from the express. 

-Other than that, I agree with most of the other points. 

 

Please do. Please explain later what your plan for de-interlining DeKalb is.

If the MTA takes your first point into consideration, then they'd have to put Lex CBTC on the back burner at least until they have sufficient R62/R62A replacements in service. As a former  line rider (it was my home line until 2010), I agree that it has a lot of crowding problems and a billion stops in The Bronx and Upper Manhattan. That's another reason why I've long objected to putting R62As there (in this current, post-Redbird era; before that, I would have been in favor of having the then-newer R62As on the ). But it might be a lot more challenging to do CBTC work on both Manhattan A-Division trunk lines (7th and Lex) at the same time.

1 hour ago, P3F said:

My guess is that his "plan" has the down Sea Beach and West End via 4th Avenue Express. Either way, it's just as silly as doing the same with the and . These proposals, which seem to be endlessly regurgitated by certain forum users, don't actually fix the DeKalb issue; they simply move the problems elsewhere. It inconveniences the customers without providing significant benefits.

At least @RR503 ended up getting the right idea.

What if more trains need to be run, especially once the  gets extended to 125th St and takes on even more riders? Then @Coney Island Av's plan might not be so silly after all. Maybe for current service needs, it is. But Stillwell Ave already has enough trouble turning the current amount of  service. What’s going to happen when more service will be needed to handle the increased ridership that will come with SAS Phase 2?

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Not to belabor the point, but I don't think Dekalb deinterlining is a necessarily bad thing -- I just think it must be an action of last resort. As you all have heard me say thousands of times now, there are a plethora of easy-to-implement operational changes in the area that would markedly increase capacity/reliability. Because merge delays/capacity issues are *generally* operating environment and not operations planning issues, I think that it would be a betrayal of agency purpose (which provide the best possible service to New Yorkers) to not at least attempt ameliorating the Dekalb situation through operational devices before we penalize riders. If I felt that all that could be done to make that junction work operationally had been done -- and yet we were still seeing massive and unsustainable capacity erosion and delays -- then I'd be for deinterlining. Needless to say, that effort has not been demonstrated yet. 

I was trying to find your most recent post that outlined what actions Transit can take right now to keep the  moving through DeKalb (Gold St) faster without having to de-interline the junction. If those actions work, then great, no need to de-interline DeKalb. And that's fine for the current service needs. None of those lines run more than 10 tph and aren't at Lex Express, QBL Express or Canarsie-level crowding. But, referencing my response to@P3F, what actions might be necessary if/when SAS Phase 2 comes on line?

Edited August 1, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

26 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I was trying to find your most recent post that outlined what actions Transit can take right now to keep the  moving through DeKalb (Gold St) faster without having to de-interline the junction. If those actions work, then great, no need to de-interline DeKalb. And that's fine for the current service needs. None of those lines run more than 10 tph and aren't at Lex Express, QBL Express or Canarsie-level crowding. But, referencing my response to@P3F, what actions might be necessary if/when SAS Phase 2 comes on line?

Basically my take is that if you eliminated the need to stop at home signals in the middle of the interlocking (whether that be by leveraging ISIM-B, moving CCTV to entry stations, adding punches at those stops, or something different) you'd almost certainly see a not-insignificant capacity increase. Couple that with some detiming, and I think you should be set. But of course, this is conjecture, and it is entirely possible that the clustering of merges in that area just is incapable of allowing more than, say 24tph/track -- in which case I'd do a study of deinterlining. 

For SAS Phase 2, you can easily send  up there to get full tph without having to touch Dekalb. That move in and of itself would almost certainly help Dekalb fluidity by reducing  bunching while also affecting a good-sized increase in absolute capacity on Broadway. 

 

[Caelestor]

Please do. Please explain later what your plan for de-interlining DeKalb is.

What if more trains need to be run, especially once the  gets extended to 125th St and takes on even more riders? Then @Coney Island Av's plan might not be so silly after all. Maybe for current service needs, it is. But Stillwell Ave already has enough trouble turning the current amount of  service. What’s going to happen when more service will be needed to handle the increased ridership that will come with SAS Phase 2?

I was trying to find your most recent post that outlined what actions Transit can take right now to keep the  moving through DeKalb (Gold St) faster without having to de-interline the junction. If those actions work, then great, no need to de-interline DeKalb. And that's fine for the current service needs. None of those lines run more than 10 tph and aren't at Lex Express, QBL Express or Canarsie-level crowding. But, referencing my response to@P3F, what actions might be necessary if/when SAS Phase 2 comes on line?

Presumably, the  all run SAS / Broadway express / Brighton, with the being the weekday part-time express route. The become full-time routes serving Upper 8 Ave / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express + associated branches. 

As for SAS Phase 2, there is no need to increase  service. A lot of people here think that the should run up SAS, leaving the to serve Astoria. This way SAS gets 20 tph peak hours and 13.5 tph middays. 

Deinterlining DeKalb Ave isn't as effective as with the IRT lines because there is no universal cross-platform transfer at DeKalb Ave, and running more trains may not be worth the increased congestion at Atlantic Ave. DeKalb was already reconstructed once at the cost of the Myrtle Ave station, and 24 tph (up from 20) per pair of track without deinterlining is totally doable, as seen in London. Given current population trends, it's arguably more important to focus on Rogers Junction + Nostrand Ave + Utica Ave and running more trains through the busier IRT lines.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

44 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Basically my take is that if you eliminated the need to stop at home signals in the middle of the interlocking (whether that be by leveraging ISIM-B, moving CCTV to entry stations, adding punches at those stops, or something different) you'd almost certainly see a not-insignificant capacity increase. Couple that with some detiming, and I think you should be set. But of course, this is conjecture, and it is entirely possible that the clustering of merges in that area just is incapable of allowing more than, say 24tph/track -- in which case I'd do a study of deinterlining. 

For SAS Phase 2, you can easily send  up there to get full tph without having to touch Dekalb. That move in and of itself would almost certainly help Dekalb fluidity by reducing  bunching while also affecting a good-sized increase in absolute capacity on Broadway. 

 

Fair enough. If just eliminating the  merge at 34th and sending the  up 2nd Ave, while leaving DeKalb as is will work, then I’m in favor of that. I’m just sick of incessantly being stopped between DeKalb Avenue station and the Manhattan Bridge. Anything to get rid of that will be most welcome.

24 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Presumably, the  all run SAS / Broadway express / Brighton, with the being the weekday part-time express route. The become full-time routes serving Upper 8 Ave / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express + associated branches. 

As for SAS Phase 2, there is no need to increase  service. A lot of people here think that the should run up SAS, leaving the to serve Astoria. This way SAS gets 20 tph peak hours and 13.5 tph middays. 

Deinterlining DeKalb Ave isn't as effective as with the IRT lines because there is no universal cross-platform transfer at DeKalb Ave, and running more trains may not be worth the increased congestion at Atlantic Ave. DeKalb was already reconstructed once at the cost of the Myrtle Ave station, and 24 tph (up from 20) per pair of track without deinterlining is totally doable, as seen in London. Given current population trends, it's arguably more important to focus on Rogers Junction + Nostrand Ave + Utica Ave and running more trains through the busier IRT lines.

Right. That’s what I assumed too, but I'd still like to see what @Coney Island Av has to say about it since it was his map. It is too bad they can’t build a new dual-island Myrtle Ave/Gold Street station there, because then that would be the place to  transfer versus Atlantic. I do agree that sending the  up 2nd with the  will likely solve the issue with not having enough trains serving 2nd Ave once Phase 2 is on line. And without having to go to 24 tph on any Manhattan Bridge tracks.

But in the case of the Brooklyn IRT, we’re already there, so that’s definitely the place to start looking at de-interlining. 

[LGA Link N Train]

I have a few questions: 

* A proposal I don't agree.with but made by the RPA was the from Court Street - NYTM to Euclid Avenue. Though I have to wonder, would this work on an operational scale and if so, how?

* is it possible for QBL to be deinterlined if CPW and Dekalb were to stay the same? If so, would that mean that there would need to be a full time Express like there is now, maybe continuing up to Jamaica Center instead of diverging onto the local at Forest Hills.

* What could be the maximum capacity of the and once Rogers Junction is deinterlined?

* how many possibilities are there to deinterlining?

Edited August 2, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[LGA Link N Train]

Delete.

Edited August 2, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[Trainmaster5]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 11:45 PM, RailRunRob said:

I don't think there are many options honestly in the short term de-interlining is the only way to make the most of what you currently have. As a daily rider of this line id have to disagree Rogers is a huge capacity issue for these lines. Let a  train leave Frankin southbound at the same time as a local. Ripple effect. And man what about when you just bearly make that  train at Utica your hoping you can beat that into Rogers ? It's a downer when that train starts to coast and slow passing Kingston you know you just added about 10 extra mins onto your ride. The   crosses your path again and You're trailing that baby all the way to Grand Central.  While yes ultimately rebuilding is the best bet you have to keep service going while you're figuring out the problem and steps.  What's the saying when you don't have an answer next best thing is to manage the problem. Optimizing and de-interlacing is a step in that direction and trying manage it somewhat.

Your experiences , both n/b and s/b, reflect the situation(s) I've encountered most of my RTO career. I've been tasked by someone who knows the scheduling and the timetables to correct an incorrect assumption that's taken on a life of is own. Those conflicts, especially s/b, during the rush are not supposed to occur schedule wise. The problem is magnified during the rush hours when there are more late trains on the road. There was a time when the ATD office was manned at the s/b end of Franklin Avenue. The model board showed every southbound local and express train between Atlantic and Franklin Avenues. That person would usually hold the local   or in the station and let the s/b express back in the day or now the headed toward Flatbush leave first. This also gave riders heading to Nostrand or Kingston Avenue on the following express a chance to connect with the local to New Lots. Today, with the delay prone Lex line in particular, coupled with the advent of the ATS system meant that particular job was deemed expendable. There was also the fact that neither the nor line Supt. wanted the payroll cost to come out of their budget. There was also supervision at Nevins Street who worked in coordination with Franklin and/or Utica tower to make those connections and expedite things. I've mentioned in other threads how my s/b could be on time at the Concourse, enter that loop and be 5 minutes late at 125 and 8 minutes late at Bowling Green. I've shared my cab with supers from school car, O&P, the school car instructor my RTO folks call " number 1", and the General Supt. of the IRT. The General Supt., who came from the " B" division, flat out said he was glad they didn't have this ( ATS ) ish over there. What I'm getting at is that choke point at the junction, while poor operationally, only magnifies a greater problem. BTW here's a little secret. That leaving Utica sometimes get an early push to leave the station. " Big Brother" will notice that there is a at President St , even if it just got there, and give it the lineup as you're passing Kingston on the n/b express. My last few years I had a that either relayed at Utica from Nevins spur, or came from Livonia yard and went in service at Utica n/b. My relay was scheduled to go in service at Bowling Green n/b at a certain time. " Big Brother" would jam me up at the junction, Atlantic Ave, Borough Hall, or in the Joralemon tube just south of Bowling Green.. It's my personal opinion that the problems we've kicked around stem more from operational things rather than dumping everything on a reconstruct or rehab of the junction. IDK how many are really aware of the plant we've been grousing about. That's why I asked about any plan to sever the n/b switch at that location. I really haven't got into the various proposals but the reason why I posed that severance question is that any train leaving Nostrand Avenue under today's situation automatically blocks all n/b Nostrand Avenue line service leaving President St. Doesn't matter where the train at President is heading, local or express. Interlined or not.That's why I really want to see how that gets mitigated. You can de-interline all you want but that 250 feet from the north end of the local track at Nostrand is the focal point of any improvements n/b. That's the bottleneck. Period. Right now the ATS system holds all the cards. Carry on.

[RR503]

42 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Your experiences , both n/b and s/b, reflect the situation(s) I've encountered most of my RTO career. I've been tasked by someone who knows the scheduling and the timetables to correct an incorrect assumption that's taken on a life of is own. Those conflicts, especially s/b, during the rush are not supposed to occur schedule wise. The problem is magnified during the rush hours when there are more late trains on the road. There was a time when the ATD office was manned at the s/b end of Franklin Avenue. The model board showed every southbound local and express train between Atlantic and Franklin Avenues. That person would usually hold the local   or in the station and let the s/b express back in the day or now the headed toward Flatbush leave first. This also gave riders heading to Nostrand or Kingston Avenue on the following express a chance to connect with the local to New Lots. Today, with the delay prone Lex line in particular, coupled with the advent of the ATS system meant that particular job was deemed expendable. There was also the fact that neither the nor line Supt. wanted the payroll cost to come out of their budget. There was also supervision at Nevins Street who worked in coordination with Franklin and/or Utica tower to make those connections and expedite things. I've mentioned in other threads how my s/b could be on time at the Concourse, enter that loop and be 5 minutes late at 125 and 8 minutes late at Bowling Green. I've shared my cab with supers from school car, O&P, the school car instructor my RTO folks call " number 1", and the General Supt. of the IRT. The General Supt., who came from the " B" division, flat out said he was glad they didn't have this ( ATS ) ish over there. What I'm getting at is that choke point at the junction, while poor operationally, only magnifies a greater problem. BTW here's a little secret. That leaving Utica sometimes get an early push to leave the station. " Big Brother" will notice that there is a at President St , even if it just got there, and give it the lineup as you're passing Kingston on the n/b express. My last few years I had a that either relayed at Utica from Nevins spur, or came from Livonia yard and went in service at Utica n/b. My relay was scheduled to go in service at Bowling Green n/b at a certain time. " Big Brother" would jam me up at the junction, Atlantic Ave, Borough Hall, or in the Joralemon tube just south of Bowling Green.. It's my personal opinion that the problems we've kicked around stem more from operational things rather than dumping everything on a reconstruct or rehab of the junction. IDK how many are really aware of the plant we've been grousing about. That's why I asked about any plan to sever the n/b switch at that location. I really haven't got into the various proposals but the reason why I posed that severance question is that any train leaving Nostrand Avenue under today's situation automatically blocks all n/b Nostrand Avenue line service leaving President St. Doesn't matter where the train at President is heading, local or express. Interlined or not.That's why I really want to see how that gets mitigated. You can de-interline all you want but that 250 feet from the north end of the local track at Nostrand is the focal point of any improvements n/b. That's the bottleneck. Period. Right now the ATS system holds all the cards. Carry on.

I think you're absolutely right in attributing a good number of delays to poor ops practices -- including many that are ATS related. Indeed, I heard ATS's (lack of) functionality actually has forced NYCT to put tower operators back at Mott, an initiative that has actually increased fluidity through the area. This is not to say that ATS is a bad idea, just that it is one that requires a competent, locally knowledgeable set of people at RCC. 

I actually do think a reconstruction would do wonders. To clarify the plan, it would add a switch between the express and local tracks between the Nostrand Ave line's divergence point and the Nostrand Station, allowing Eastern Parkway expresses to serve the eastern segment of that line without touching Nostrand/EP local traffic at all. That would indeed necessitate the destruction of some columns, but as the structural analyses linked upthread showed, that is by no means an insurmountable obstacle. There would be no severence of track involved. 

The best way to think of this plan's benefits -- in my opinion -- is in terms of absolute capacity (line capacity assuming the optimum operating environment). Currently, we have 3 services sharing one track for a short distance, which disallows any of the 3 from reaching their potential. Because of the short length of track involved, this situation doesn't dilute all the way to 10tph/service, but it does bring things down into the 11-12 range, which is simply insufficient given these corridors' needs. Deinterlining eliminates that sharing entirely, allowing all services on EP to reach maximum absolute capacity. 

Now, I'm sure there's an operational way to affect that increase -- or at least raise Rogers cap to the point where it isn't the limiter of service. But I think any ops solution runs up against this issue of absolute capacity, along with all the reliability issues you elucidated. Runnning a full complement of trains through Rogers would create a situation that would have to be so tightly scheduled that it would be simply inoperable. Any small delay -- even one of a few minutes -- would kill the delicate equilibrium of the junction, causing delays to ripple up both corridors. The rebuild/deinterline solution fixes that issue in its entirety, as not only would it ease the need for schedule adherence in the area, but it would also isolate the corridors from each other, preventing the cascade issue that you and others discuss.

I again agree that reliability arguments should be made first in discussions about operating environment rather than ops planning, but the issue of three lines sharing one track seals the deal for me here. I also somewhat believe that the Lex/7th corridors present a sort of 'special case' in terms of their reliability issues. Whereas a junction like Dekalb suffers from reliability pressures but not so much ridership ones, Rogers' lines suffer in the extreme from both -- a situation that demands something be done now, rather than after we dig ourselves out of years of institutional myopia and observe the result. The level of arcanity on show in this area of the system is simply unsustainable. 

[Trainmaster5]

Just want to add some context to my observations. I’ve pointed out numerous times about my problems with the ATS system. RR503 made an astute point about the Tower Operator at 149th Grand Concourse-Mott .When local supervision had control of the plant my train was always on time heading down the Lexington corridor. I am under the impression that whatever sensors the ATS uses at Mott Avenue are/were poorly placed s/b which would automatically line up my  follower before it entered the station on the upper level. The sad part was that local supervision down the line knew the reason for my lateness but the RCC wouldn’t allow me to use that as a reason whenever someone questioned me about lateness. The official line was that the ATS was a success, period. As I’ve pointed out many times I’ve had all types of supervision make that trip with me and had an ally in the RCC whom I gave radio checks to from Dyre to Mott. Luckily the General Superintendent had my back and my folks at Operations and Planning created a new job for my C/R and I that kept us out of the political mess of the ATS system. That’s the job where we had no local supervision when we signed on. That was the O&P folks way to give the finger to the ATS crew at the RCC😁. There was no supervision because the RCC used the implementation of ATS to eliminate the dispatcher job at that location. 

@ RR503 and RailRunRob

My rabbi wanted me to point out that 35 years ago we had a discussion about the junction and some of us wanted to move the functionality to the north end of Franklin Avenue for n/b service. There was an unused dispatcher office on the platform towards the northern end. He told us that the idea was never considered because the Franklin Shuttle passed directly above that location. The last time a few of us kicked it around was when we thought the shuttle was being torn down. Between the shuttle rebuild and the Transit Police district takeover of the staircases at that end of the station for a time I don’t know if there was any thought of working on that end.

[Lance]

Just to interject something regarding the oft-proposed DeKalb Av switch, I see the idea is now to swap the and or something to that effect. My question is how does this work during off-peak hours? When the ran on the West End, it ran 19/7 to Manhattan, either to 57 Street or 21 St-Queensbridge. Neither of those options are available without getting in the way of through services. That says nothing for previous late night West End service, which was relegated to shuttle status during that time. While a justification can be made for more off-hours service on the Central Park West and 6th Avenue lines, I cannot see that going far in calling for three services on those lines during the overnight hours, which would be required in order to give Sea Beach customers direct service to Manhattan. It's not much better for the and via Brighton either. One of those would likely be relegated to part-time status since they would mirror each other from 57 St-7 Av to Prospect Park and even more if the were to join the as a 2nd Avenue service. It'd be extremely hard to justify off-hours Brighton express service to keep both services running at all times, which means these massive changes will not be particularly useful outside of the peak periods.

That's why while I'm against changing any of the DeKalb services, I'd much prefer swapping the and over the and . With the former, Brighton can still operate peak period express service and the West End and Sea Beach lines will continue to provide 24/7 service to Manhattan without needlessly duplicating existing late night service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Really, weekend service CPW/6th Ave service and the ability to run as much weekday service on SAS (assuming a completed Phase 2) and Brighton as possible are the advantages to swapping the  and . But there certainly are disadvantages too. Swapping the  and  would almost certainly require them to swap service hours in addition to swapping south terminals. It’s true that they can’t terminate the  at 57th or 21st/Queensbridge anymore, so Atlantic-Barclays would probably be the ’s overnight north terminal, which likely won’t go well with Sea Beach riders. You’d also have to run the  local via Montague overnight to make up for the loss of the overnight . Unless the  goes back to 24/7 operation.

It’s true that the “other way” - swapping the  and  in Brooklyn is a much simpler swap because both are 24/7 operations. I would much prefer that option too if de-interlining DeKalb ever becomes the only option left. The big disadvantages there are the mass transferring at Atlantic and having nothing but 6th Avenue service on Brighton (which, seems to be less desirable  than Broadway). 

You see, way back in this thread and in the SAS discussion thread, it was posted that the current  service would risk falling far short of SAS ridership once Phase 2 comes on line. So my thinking was that Transit is going to have to give the  a big service boost (the SAS study mentioned something like 19 tph). Three problems with just doing that are: 

1. DeKalb Junction. Can you imagine a  at 19tph operating through there under current practices? I can’t!

2. 34th St. How do 19  trains merge with 7-8  trains? Not very well, I reckon!

3. Brighton Line. Where do you turn the additional  trains on Brighton? Not Brighton Beach, not without booting the  from there. And Stillwell has enough with the current  service, so not there either. 

De-interlining DeKalb solves the first and third problems with moving so many trains, but not the second. I used to think that if you swap the  and , you would then be able to turn half the  trains at 9th Ave. But more recently, I realized doing that meant it would be virtually impossible to run the  express in Manhattan with the ...unless the 34th St merge is eliminated. That’s how you solve the second problem, which I’ve also come to see as being the real problem with Broadway Line service in Manhattan, as opposed to DeKalb Junction, like I used to think. The first and third problems really aren’t as big a problem as the second one is.

Edited August 3, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Really, weekend service CPW/6th Ave service and the ability to run as much weekday service on SAS (assuming a completed Phase 2) and Brighton as possible are the advantages to swapping the  and . But there certainly are disadvantages too. Swapping the  and  would almost certainly require them to swap service hours in addition to swapping south terminals. It’s true that they can’t terminate the  at 57th or 21st/Queensbridge anymore, so Atlantic-Barclays would probably be the ’s overnight north terminal, which likely won’t go well with Sea Beach riders. You’d also have to run the  local via Montague overnight to make up for the loss of the overnight . Unless the  goes back to 24/7 operation.

It’s true that the “other way” - swapping the  and  in Brooklyn is a much simpler swap because both are 24/7 operations. I would much prefer that option too if de-interlining DeKalb ever becomes the only option left. The big disadvantages there are the mass transferring at Atlantic and having nothing but 6th Avenue service on Brighton (which, seems to be less desirable  than Broadway). 

You see, way back in this thread and in the SAS discussion thread, it was posted that the current  service would risk falling far short of SAS ridership once Phase 2 comes on line. So my thinking was that Transit is going to have to give the  a big service boost (the SAS study mentioned something like 19 tph). Three problems with just doing that are: 

1. DeKalb Junction. Can you imagine a  at 19tph operating through there under current practices? I can’t!

2. 34th St. How do 19  trains merge with 7-8  trains? Not very well, I reckon!

3. Brighton Line. Where do you turn the additional  trains on Brighton? Not Brighton Beach, not without booting the  from there. And Stillwell has enough with the current  service, so not there either. 

De-interlining DeKalb solves the first and third problems with moving so many trains, but not the second. I used to think that if you swap the  and , you would then be able to turn half the  trains at 9th Ave. But more recently, I realized doing that meant it would be virtually impossible to run the  express in Manhattan with the ...unless the 34th St merge is eliminated. That’s how you solve the second problem, which I’ve also come to see as being the real problem with Broadway Line service in Manhattan, as opposed to DeKalb Junction, like I used to think. The first and third problems really aren’t as big a problem as the second one is.

To solve the SAS and 34th issues, just send the  there while the  runs to FHills and the  runs to Astoria/LGA. If we were to deinterline DeKalb though (which I am not a fan of doing), I'd prefer swapping the  and  as Brighton riders prefer Broadway while 4th/West End/Sea Beach seem to prefer 6th as the Chinese communities there want access to Grand Street. This may eliminate the cross-platform transfer at DeKalb, but I doubt riders will want to swap to the  for just one stop as going through the transfer could be quicker than waiting for the  , taking it to DeKalb, and then waiting for another train. Under this plan, service patterns would be this way:

 -CI via 4th/Sea Beach. Operates all times, 

 same routing.

 96th/125th to Brighton Beach via Brighton express. Operates weekdays only except late nights.

 same routing.

 Astoria (later LGA) to Bay Ridge. Operates out of a new yard in Astoria. Operates all times.

 FHills to Bay Ridge. Late nights no service, use  .

[Coney Island Av]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Really, weekend service CPW/6th Ave service and the ability to run as much weekday service on SAS (assuming a completed Phase 2) and Brighton as possible are the advantages to swapping the  and . But there certainly are disadvantages too. Swapping the  and  would almost certainly require them to swap service hours in addition to swapping south terminals. It’s true that they can’t terminate the  at 57th or 21st/Queensbridge anymore, so Atlantic-Barclays would probably be the ’s overnight north terminal, which likely won’t go well with Sea Beach riders. You’d also have to run the  local via Montague overnight to make up for the loss of the overnight . Unless the  goes back to 24/7 operation.

It’s true that the “other way” - swapping the  and  in Brooklyn is a much simpler swap because both are 24/7 operations. I would much prefer that option too if de-interlining DeKalb ever becomes the only option left. The big disadvantages there are the mass transferring at Atlantic and having nothing but 6th Avenue service on Brighton (which, seems to be less desirable  than Broadway). 

You see, way back in this thread and in the SAS discussion thread, it was posted that the current  service would risk falling far short of SAS ridership once Phase 2 comes on line. So my thinking was that Transit is going to have to give the  a big service boost (the SAS study mentioned something like 19 tph). Three problems with just doing that are: 

1. DeKalb Junction. Can you imagine a  at 19tph operating through there under current practices? I can’t!

2. 34th St. How do 19  trains merge with 7-8  trains? Not very well, I reckon!

3. Brighton Line. Where do you turn the additional  trains on Brighton? Not Brighton Beach, not without booting the  from there. And Stillwell has enough with the current  service, so not there either. 

De-interlining DeKalb solves the first and third problems with moving so many trains, but not the second. I used to think that if you swap the  and , you would then be able to turn half the  trains at 9th Ave. But more recently, I realized doing that meant it would be virtually impossible to run the  express in Manhattan with the ...unless the 34th St merge is eliminated. That’s how you solve the second problem, which I’ve also come to see as being the real problem with Broadway Line service in Manhattan, as opposed to DeKalb Junction, like I used to think. The first and third problems really aren’t as big a problem as the second one is.

My plan would look like this:

: Bedford Park Blvd to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp and 4 Av-Sea Beach Exp. Late nights from Atlantic to Coney Island, skipping all local stops. 

: 205 St to Coney Island as-is today

: 96 St (2-3 TPH) or 71 Av (9-10 TPH) to Brighton Beach via Broadway/Brighton Exp. Weekends and late nights no service. 

: 96 St to Coney Island as-is today

: LGA to 95 St via Astoria/Broadway/4 Av Local. Runs all times. 

: discontinued, if not LGA to Whitehall weekdays only 

Reasoning:

The reason why I prefer swapping the  and  over the  and  is because Brighton prefers Broadway over 6th and 4 Av in return would still have both the  to 6th and  to Broadway, the former of which they seem to prefer more. No one loses out when it comes to customer preferences. 

Unfortunately, one downside to this is that Sea Beach would lose 24/7 service to Manhattan. But it's the only option to choose from. And as mentioned earlier, the  and  would have to swap service patterns. 

I know sending the  via 63rd is basically a dead horse at this point. But since Dekalb is now deinterlined, and the bottleneck gone,  service can easily be increased to meet the demands of SAS (aka 19 TPH). This eliminates the need for the  on SAS and could instead be allowed to roam free on QBL. 

 to LGA should be self-explanatory. 

I'm slowly working on the map for Dekalb at the moment. Afterward, I'll post one for 8th, then Broadway, and finally, a global map of the system showing a (somewhat) deinterlined system. 

 

 

[R68OnBroadway]

Why do people keep on cutting back Sea Beach or West End service to Atlantic Avenue? Considering the  has now taken over the  's pattern of being a supplementary line (to the  ), we should be able to run the  according to the  's former pattern of being a full-time trunk. If we are going to deinterline Dekalb, we should at least give one-seat rides at all times for all branches to Manhattan as transferring during late nights is a PITA that may make it better to just walk a few avenues instead.

Edited August 4, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[Around the Horn]

No no no no...

Why are you all so obsessed with swapping the and ? As @Lance and @T to Dyre Avenue have pointed out, that plan creates more issues than it solves...

I personally would do the following:

Broadway/4th Avenue Express (combined 20 TPH)

via Sea Beach 10 TPH

via West End 10 TPH

Broadway/4th Avenue Local (combined 21 TPH)

7 TPH

14 TPH

-to Whitehall 7 TPH

-to 9th Av or Bay Ridge 7 TPH

Brighton/6th Avenue (combined 20 TPH)

10 TPH

10 TPH

(You could probably run a few more TPH because of the deinterlining)

 

[Caelestor]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Really, weekend service CPW/6th Ave service and the ability to run as much weekday service on SAS (assuming a completed Phase 2) and Brighton as possible are the advantages to swapping the  and . But there certainly are disadvantages too. Swapping the  and  would almost certainly require them to swap service hours in addition to swapping south terminals. It’s true that they can’t terminate the  at 57th or 21st/Queensbridge anymore, so Atlantic-Barclays would probably be the ’s overnight north terminal, which likely won’t go well with Sea Beach riders. You’d also have to run the  local via Montague overnight to make up for the loss of the overnight . Unless the  goes back to 24/7 operation.

It’s true that the “other way” - swapping the  and  in Brooklyn is a much simpler swap because both are 24/7 operations. I would much prefer that option too if de-interlining DeKalb ever becomes the only option left. The big disadvantages there are the mass transferring at Atlantic and having nothing but 6th Avenue service on Brighton (which, seems to be less desirable  than Broadway). 

You see, way back in this thread and in the SAS discussion thread, it was posted that the current  service would risk falling far short of SAS ridership once Phase 2 comes on line. So my thinking was that Transit is going to have to give the  a big service boost (the SAS study mentioned something like 19 tph). Three problems with just doing that are: 

1. DeKalb Junction. Can you imagine a  at 19tph operating through there under current practices? I can’t!

2. 34th St. How do 19  trains merge with 7-8  trains? Not very well, I reckon!

3. Brighton Line. Where do you turn the additional  trains on Brighton? Not Brighton Beach, not without booting the  from there. And Stillwell has enough with the current  service, so not there either. 

De-interlining DeKalb solves the first and third problems with moving so many trains, but not the second. I used to think that if you swap the  and , you would then be able to turn half the  trains at 9th Ave. But more recently, I realized doing that meant it would be virtually impossible to run the  express in Manhattan with the ...unless the 34th St merge is eliminated. That’s how you solve the second problem, which I’ve also come to see as being the real problem with Broadway Line service in Manhattan, as opposed to DeKalb Junction, like I used to think. The first and third problems really aren’t as big a problem as the second one is.

The already can't handle SAS by itself, seeing as and  trains are being rerouted to 96 St. Adding  trains to 96 St during the  shutdown will actually reach the 14 tph FEIS target, but long-term the  (or whatever the second Broadway express service is) has to be rerouted to 96 St / 125 St. The only obstacle to rerouting the  is Astoria service on the weekends. 

Looking at the track diagrams, Broadway has access to 3 northern branches (SAS, Astoria, and QBL) and access to 4 southern branches (Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, and Brighton). 6 Ave has access to 3 northern branches (8 Ave/Concourse, 63 St, and 53 St), and access to 5 southern branches (Culver, Jamaica/Myrtle Ave, Sea Beach, West End, and Brighton). So the question is how to juggle the services so that each branch is adequately served at all times.

Late night and weekend service currently make a lot of sense. West End, Culver, Sea Beach, Brighton, and Bay Ridge all have their own trains - the . Jamaica/Myrtle is served by the transfer to the  at Delancey St, and as the shortest branch, the  is cut to Whitehall St late nights. 8 Ave/Concourse, 63 St, Astoria, and SAS are served by the , with 53 St being served by the  transfer at 53 St - 7 Ave, and the Broadway / QBL connection served by the .

On weekdays though, both Broadway and 6 Ave need 4 services each, or 2 per pair of tracks. The current 6 Ave arrangement makes sense, as the  doubles service on the busiest BMT branch and the  can't run into Park Slope with the  in the way. Most importantly, the  and never merge with each other. On the other hand, Broadway confusingly has less service than 6 Ave, due to the  local/express merge at 34 St. Eliminating that merge adds 8 tph with no expensive construction, though that means the  will need a new northern terminal, at least during rush hour. The other issue is the additional  trains to Astoria, as Whitehall St can't turn the extra trains - if the MTA is right and Bay Ridge can't turn more than 10 tph, the solution is probably a rush-hour extension of trains to 86 St . 

Now if even more capacity is needed on Broadway and/or 6 Ave, then deinterlining can be considered. As Broadway is the busier trunk, especially on weekends, it needs two express lines via the Bridge, implying that the run down 4 Ave and the run along Brighton. Unlike say Rogers Junction, there's a few issues: 

• Awkward transfer at Atlantic Ave: probably the most concerning issue since the station's already high transfer volume will increase further.
• Headway mismatch: Currently the stops served by the  get 8 minute headways, though in all honesty no line should have more than 8 minute headways during the day.
• Messing with the status quo: In 2004, the could have gone to the West End and the  could have returned to Brighton, but the MTA approved the existing service routes based on rider demands. I previously posted that the MTA can change service patterns whenever they want, but it's still something to consider.

My personal opinion is that DeKalb won't be deinterlined, but Broadway will be, with

•  125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Sea Beach
•  125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Brighton
•  Astoria - Bay Ridge
•  Forest Hills - Whitehall St (all times except late night)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 8/3/2018 at 9:24 PM, Coney Island Av said:

Reasoning:

The reason why I prefer swapping the  and  over the  and  is because Brighton prefers Broadway over 6th and 4 Av in return would still have both the  to 6th and  to Broadway, the former of which they seem to prefer more. No one loses out when it comes to customer preferences. 

 

On 8/3/2018 at 8:39 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

To solve the SAS and 34th issues, just send the  there while the  runs to FHills and the  runs to Astoria/LGA. If we were to deinterline DeKalb though (which I am not a fan of doing), I'd prefer swapping the  and  as Brighton riders prefer Broadway while 4th/West End/Sea Beach seem to prefer 6th as the Chinese communities there want access to Grand Street. This may eliminate the cross-platform transfer at DeKalb, but I doubt riders will want to swap to the  for just one stop as going through the transfer could be quicker than waiting for the  , taking it to DeKalb, and then waiting for another train. Under this plan, service patterns would be this way:

I recall seeing the point about Brighton Line riders preferring Broadway BMT for Manhattan and the folks along the West End and Sea Beach lines preferring the 6th Ave IND posted on numerous occasions, on here, on SubChat and on Sagas. I don’t doubt you guys. I just wonder if Transit did some kind of survey and if the results match up with said preferences. 

On 8/3/2018 at 9:35 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Why do people keep on cutting back Sea Beach or West End service to Atlantic Avenue? Considering the  has now taken over the  's pattern of being a supplementary line (to the  ), we should be able to run the  according to the  's former pattern of being a full-time trunk. If we are going to deinterline Dekalb, we should at least give one-seat rides at all times for all branches to Manhattan as transferring during late nights is a PITA that may make it better to just walk a few avenues instead.

A decent case for a weekend 6th Ave express/CPW local train can be made (as the  has operated that service in the past). But the same case can’t be made for running three overnight services on CPW. And there’s no place to turn the  without blocking the  until 145th St. There’s a double crossover switch northbound after Broadway-Lafayette, which would allow the overnight  to switch to 6th Ave Local. But there’s no corresponding switch southbound before Broadway-Lafayette. If there was, then that might be an option, because there’s a turn back switch between the express tracks after the northbound crossover switch, which the overnight  would then be able to use. 

23 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

No no no no...

Why are you all so obsessed with swapping the and ? As @Lance and @T to Dyre Avenue have pointed out, that plan creates more issues than it solves...

I personally would do the following:

Broadway/4th Avenue Express (combined 20 TPH)

via Sea Beach 10 TPH

via West End 10 TPH

Broadway/4th Avenue Local (combined 21 TPH)

7 TPH

14 TPH

-to Whitehall 7 TPH

-to 9th Av or Bay Ridge 7 TPH

Brighton/6th Avenue (combined 20 TPH)

10 TPH

10 TPH

(You could probably run a few more TPH because of the deinterlining)

 

 

21 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The already can't handle SAS by itself, seeing as and  trains are being rerouted to 96 St. Adding  trains to 96 St during the  shutdown will actually reach the 14 tph FEIS target, but long-term the  (or whatever the second Broadway express service is) has to be rerouted to 96 St / 125 St. The only obstacle to rerouting the  is Astoria service on the weekends. 

...

Now if even more capacity is needed on Broadway and/or 6 Ave, then deinterlining can be considered. As Broadway is the busier trunk, especially on weekends, it needs two express lines via the Bridge, implying that the run down 4 Ave and the run along Brighton. Unlike say Rogers Junction, there's a few issues: 

• Awkward transfer at Atlantic Ave: probably the most concerning issue since the station's already high transfer volume will increase further.
• Headway mismatch: Currently the stops served by the  get 8 minute headways, though in all honesty no line should have more than 8 minute headways during the day.
• Messing with the status quo: In 2004, the could have gone to the West End and the  could have returned to Brighton, but the MTA approved the existing service routes based on rider demands. I previously posted that the MTA can change service patterns whenever they want, but it's still something to consider.

My personal opinion is that DeKalb won't be deinterlined, but Broadway will be, with

•  125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Sea Beach
•  125 St/96 St - CI via Bridge, Brighton
•  Astoria - Bay Ridge
•  Forest Hills - Whitehall St (all times except late night)

It may create additional issues, but if the aforementioned customer preferences @Coney Island Av and @R68OnBroadway are indeed the preferences, then I would be fine with swapping the  and . 

I could have sworn I’ve seen the  /  alternative be mentioned much more frequently on the Forums and on Sagas (de-interlining DeKalb gets a far chillier reception on SubChat) than the opposite alternative. Probably because it’s simpler to do it that way. But I am much more willing to give elimination of the  crossing from express to local at 34th and (especially!) eliminating the stop at DeKalb Junction for lineup identification a chance at making the trains run faster through the junction and on the Broadway BMT. And to provide more service to 2nd Ave when Phase 2 opens. 

Bringing the  back to Astoria (with a yard in Sunset Park) and running the  to FH solves the issue with weekend Astoria service. You also wouldn’t have to run the  (or ) via Montague overnight because the  could go back to 24/7 operation between Bay Ridge and Queens.

Edited August 5, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[BreeddekalbL]

If NYC all off a sudden got on a remove the el's kick like Boston would it be possible and or feasible?

Edited August 5, 2018 by BreeddekalbL

[LGA Link N Train]

5 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If NYC all off a sudden got on a remove the el's kick like Boston would it be possible and or feasible?

In this day and age, not really. Especially Astoria and Flushing 

[engineerboy6561]

7 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If NYC all off a sudden got on a remove the el's kick like Boston would it be possible and or feasible?

Not really; Astoria and Flushing would be hard to do. I'd be in favor of doing that for Jamaica and widening it to four tracks all the way out to Parsons/Archer. I'm not sure how you'd do Flushing or Astoria, though, and honestly for Flushing and Jamaica I'd want them both widened to four tracks if you're going to do that. Flushing would also be rough because I don't know how deep you'd need to go to dodge the BQE and Jackson Av.

[R68OnBroadway]

12 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

If NYC all off a sudden got on a remove the el's kick like Boston would it be possible and or feasible?

Removing els now is waste of time unless they are severely dilapidated or capacity-reducing, to which no current els come to mind of. People can complain about Els causing blight all they want, but the only reason why the removal of Manhattan els improved the areas they were in was because of a few things: 

1. Manhattan was becoming very dense and was the center of the city.

2. The Els in Manhattan were significantly older and heavier-used than ones in the outer boroughs.

3. Plenty of new offices were built in Manhattan, and an El passing them on streets would bother workers; and

4. Real estate interests were squirming to pounce on real estate whose prices had shot up with the el gone.

In plenty of more modern cases, removing Els had little effect on neighborhood and/or worsened commute times as the areas were not planned to become major business centers like Manhattan (see eastern Jamaica and 3rd Av Bronx Els) , and the loss of an el caused a decline in business to the area due to signficantly less foot traffic. 

[BreeddekalbL]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

in plenty of more modern cases, removing Els had little effect on neighborhood and/or worsened commute times as the areas were not planned to become major business centers like Manhattan (see eastern Jamaica and 3rd Av Bronx Els) , and the loss of an el caused a decline in business to the area due to signficantly less foot traffic. 

Would the CTA green line Jackson Park branch qualify? 

[LGA Link N Train]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=15mPvTVidGBeGYevSJ4jH-Etm3Q14Ll6-&ll=40.69674326759687%2C-73.94077778554686&z=12

Here's another map that I made with partial deinterlining, I swapped the and in Queens, and have Rogers Junction fixed. I'm currently unsure on how to expand the subway network.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

I have a new proposal for all of you.

Rebuilding the Franklin Avenue Shuttle along with Franklin Station on the and . Botanic Garden Station is extended to be 480-600' and north of it, the Shuttle becomes burried. The hard part is to build either side platforms or an island Platform above or below Franklin Avenue station on the at Fulton Street. Once that is complete, the new south bound track goes underneath the current crosstown tracks to connect with the at Bedford Nostrand while the Northbound track just turns to meet up with the . A third track is built at Classon Avenue in case of anything. The whole purpose of this is to connect the Crosstown line with the Brighton line. 

Also, I don't think this is Feasible,  but adding a new switch before Ocean Parkway seems important to me for some reason,  the expensive alternative to this would be to make Ocean Parkway, a Bi-Level station, with the express tracks in the upper level with an island platform, and a lower level platform (existing) with Local tracks, a huge island platform (with elevators to make the station ADA accessible) and New Relay tracks where the trackbed currently stands. 

Any thoughts about this?

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I have a new proposal for all of you.

Rebuilding the Franklin Avenue Shuttle along with Franklin Station on the and . Botanic Garden Station is extended to be 480-600' and north of it, the Shuttle becomes burried. The hard part is to build either side platforms or an island Platform above or below Franklin Avenue station on the at Fulton Street. Once that is complete, the new south bound track goes underneath the current crosstown tracks to connect with the at Bedford Nostrand while the Northbound track just turns to meet up with the . A third track is built at Classon Avenue in case of anything. The whole purpose of this is to connect the Crosstown line with the Brighton line. 

Also, I don't think this is Feasible,  but adding a new switch before Ocean Parkway seems important to me for some reason,  the expensive alternative to this would be to make Ocean Parkway, a Bi-Level station, with the express tracks in the upper level with an island platform, and a lower level platform (existing) with Local tracks, a huge island platform (with elevators to make the station ADA accessible) and New Relay tracks where the trackbed currently stands. 

Any thoughts about this?

That would actually be really interesting to do, not really because of the Brighton Line connection, but it would be the perfect starting spot for  service to Staten Island and to tie in with the LIE proposal mentioned in the 2 Av thread. Mostly, you could run  service via a two- or three-track line up Richmond Av from the SI Mall, turn right onto Victory Blvd before cutting south on Clove Rd to 278 and running under 278 all the way to Brooklyn. In Brooklyn I'd send it up Fort Hamilton Parkway, turn north under Parkside Av to connect with the Brighton local tracks, then follow the path you described to join the . North of Broadway I'd split it off, run it under Grand Av, then under (or over) 495 out to Springfield Blvd, with a connection to the  at a converted Woodhaven Blvd.