Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[MysteriousBtrain]

Right!!

 

If anything, the part up to Church Avenue needs more service, which was why I proposed for a Culver Express having the run via the after West 4th and have the become such.   That would be WAY more likely than having just the along a very heavily ridden area.

So what will replace the as the Fulton Local?

[Union Tpke]

-Note to self: delete that website-

 

I really don't understand what you're going on about with the part involving Rosedale and the M...

what do you mean by delete that website and never mind about rose dale and the M would be the new QB express

[bobtehpanda]

what do you mean by delete that website and never mind about rose dale and the M would be the new QB express

 

It's an old website I used to run.

[Q43LTD]

my new proposals

swicth the and the terminals, meaning the will go to Bedford Park during rush hours, and stop at 145th other times, and the will go to 168th Street. 

Make the run 7 days a week

Make the run weekdays only and terminate at the World Trade Center

reroute the to the Fulton Avenue Line and terminate at Euclid Avenue

extend the down the Culver Line to Coney Island

Um Culver riders want a word with you since you're taking away Manhattan service 

[Wallyhorse]

So what will replace the as the Fulton Local?

I really wrote that strictly to prove a point in this case, but since you asked (and I've mentioned this before).....

 

As I would do it, the would become the Fulton local to Euclid Avenue at all times and extended late nights to Lefferts to eliminate the Lefferts shuttle and the two-seat ride Lefferts residents have during those hours.  During rush hours, some trains (usually those going to/from 179th) would terminate at Chambers as the does now.

 

A new (actually revived) train that really would be a supplemental line, running 2-4 TPH (5 TPH if warranted) from Chambers-168th Street.  This version would run at all times and along with an extended would allow the to be express in Manhattan and Brooklyn at all times.  This train mainly would be for those coming from the PATH terminal who are too lazy or otherwise can't walk to the platform at Chambers and for those south of West 4th specifically looking for Columbus Circle, CPW and other points north of 50th Street. 

 

If the did move to the Culver line after West 4th and became the Culver Express, it would also replace the to Coney Island (save for a few trains to Kings Highway in rush hours as the otherwise would terminate at Church Avenue, except late nights when the would run as it does now) to give riders at Coney Island and at express stops on the Culver branch a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have AND give riders on the Fulton line NOT looking for lower Manhattan the option of switching to the at Jay Street since the would run via Rutgers.  It also would give riders coming from/going to the at Broadway-Lafayette an 8th Avenue line option they don't have with a new cross-platform option riders from the and coming from/going to Brooklyn there as well.

 

The real point of what I wrote earlier, however, was that you were much more likely to see this than have the become the sole line along Park Slope and the Culver Line.  The rest of this is something that is unlikely to happen, at the very least until the Hudson Yards project is completely or at least has been built significantly.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Wallyhorse

[Fresh Pond]

Everything you just said is even more unlikely to happen...

[bobtehpanda]

The E got moved from Euclid because it was too long, but that's none of my business...

 

The systemwide absolute limit on train capacity is still 30 TPH, btw.

[LTA1992]

Is that per 2-Tracks? Say, a 4-Track line can handle 60?

[CenSin]

Is that per 2-Tracks? Say, a 4-Track line can handle 60?

30 trains per hour per pair of tracks seems to be the rule of thumb.

[bobtehpanda]

Is that per 2-Tracks? Say, a 4-Track line can handle 60?

 

Theoretically. In practice, this is very rarely achievable due to either terminal constraints or passenger overcrowding on platforms.

 

Newer CBTC technology is based on technology that, in other cities, allows for 40 TPH, but this would require an adequate terminal and power system upgrades; the could run up to 26 TPH in its current track configuration, but would need power system upgrades to do so.

Edited December 5, 2014 by bobtehpanda

[Union Tpke]

It's an old website I used to run.

Even though the proposals are unrealistic they are still interesting, why would you need to delete it.

dratts now i am no longer able to see it. Please may I be able to?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Union Tpke

[Quill Depot]

If the did move to the Culver line after West 4th and became the Culver Express, it would also replace the to Coney Island (save for a few trains to Kings Highway in rush hours as the otherwise would terminate at Church Avenue, except late nights when the would run as it does now) to give riders at Coney Island and at express stops on the Culver branch a one-seat 8th Avenue option they don't currently have AND give riders on the Fulton line NOT looking for lower Manhattan the option of switching to the at Jay Street since the would run via Rutgers.  It also would give riders coming from/going to the at Broadway-Lafayette an 8th Avenue line option they don't have with a new cross-platform option riders from the and coming from/going to Brooklyn there as well.

The real point of what I wrote earlier, however, was that you were much more likely to see this than have the become the sole line along Park Slope and the Culver Line.  The rest of this is something that is unlikely to happen, at the very least until the Hudson Yards project is completely or at least has been built significantly.

However this stops up service with all the merging trains. If you really wanted an express you might as well use a diamond or bring the back. Sure it sounds great on paper, but I've realised this will cause more harm then it's worth.

[MTA Dude]

Theoretically. In practice, this is very rarely achievable due to either terminal constraints or passenger overcrowding on platforms.

 

Newer CBTC technology is based on technology that, in other cities, allows for 40 TPH, but this would require an adequate terminal and power system upgrades; the could run up to 26 TPH in its current track configuration, but would need power system upgrades to do so.

 

The main reason the runs on that much is because of its terminals. Both terminals are stub ended, so what I would suggest is extend the tracks to become a 4 track termination, then have most trains layup to terminate. Actually, do it how Livonia does it. I have no idea how it does that, but have it do that method.

[CenSin]

The main reason the runs on that much is because of its terminals. Both terminals are stub ended, so what I would suggest is extend the tracks to become a 4 track termination, then have most trains layup to terminate. Actually, do it how Livonia does it. I have no idea how it does that, but have it do that method.

The used extend beyond Canarsie before World War Ⅱ. But it would've been hard to predict a meteoric rise in ridership at the time it was truncated anyway. Those tracks would have been useful today, but only if grade-separated from the intervening roads.

[Trainmaster5]

The main reason the runs on that much is because of its terminals. Both terminals are stub ended, so what I would suggest is extend the tracks to become a 4 track termination, then have most trains layup to terminate. Actually, do it how Livonia does it. I have no idea how it does that, but have it do that method.

What exactly is it that you think Livonia/ New Lots station does differently than other two track terminals ? The yard leads beyond the station limits are not generally used for basic line service so the and the are both stub ended at either end for the most part. The main difference is CBTC on the line.

[bobtehpanda]

The used extend beyond Canarsie before World War Ⅱ. But it would've been hard to predict a meteoric rise in ridership at the time it was truncated anyway. Those tracks would have been useful today, but only if grade-separated from the intervening roads.

 

Wasn't that just a streetcar, which is the main reason we have the B42 in-system transfer?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It was a streetcar that ran from Rockaway Parkway to Canarsie Pier. There was also the Norton's Point Trolley which ran a similar "streetcar extension" of the subway from Coney Island. It connected directly to the West End Line platform at Stillwell Ave. It's unfortunate those two lines didn't survive, given they ran on their own right-of-way. Boston had - and still has - a similar operation in the Mattapan Trolley which extends from the Red Line subway at Ashmont to Mattapan Square.

[CenSin]

Wasn't that just a streetcar, which is the main reason we have the B42 in-system transfer?

It was an extension of the Canarsie line before it became anything else. What doomed it were the grade crossings. You couldn't install a third rail for power with all the roads crossing them. They simply decided to install the third rail down to Rockaway Parkway and stop there.

[Javier]

This is what I would do-

 

Extend the to Getty Square In Yonkers.

Extend the to Getty Square In Yonkers on Late Nights, during the day the (8) train runs between Getty Square and Woodlawn, Woodlawn becomes 3 tracks and 2 platforms.

 

The is extended to Bedford Park Blvd during Rush Hours and the is extended to Lefferts Blvd, the now runs between 207 Street and Far Rockaway, the runs to 168 Street during Rush Hours.

 

More to come!

[MysteriousBtrain]

This is what I would do-

 

Extend the to Getty Square In Yonkers.

Extend the to Getty Square In Yonkers on Late Nights, during the day the (8) train runs between Getty Square and Woodlawn, Woodlawn becomes 3 tracks and 2 platforms.

 

The is extended to Bedford Park Blvd during Rush Hours and the is extended to Lefferts Blvd, the now runs between 207 Street and Far Rockaway, the runs to 168 Street during Rush Hours.

 

More to come!

How would 145 Street hold both the and (assuming they both end there non rush hours)? The 145 Street terminal is one track, so it can only hold one line.

[MTA Dude]

How would 145 Street hold both the and (assuming they both end there non rush hours)? The 145 Street terminal is one track, so it can only hold one line.

 

The train already has trouble and has to get held at 135th Street, and it has to wait for the to clear and perhaps a train that's passing by.

[RollOver]

-The only reason why the goes to/from 168 St instead of Bedford Park Blvd is because its car equipment are regularly maintained/inspected at 207th Street's shop. The first southbound trains come out of the yard, run lite to 168th, and then starts service from there. The last northbound trains leave 168th, switches over to the outer tracks north of the station and run lite to the yard until the next morning.

 

-If the short turning at 145 St on one solely track causes delays to the , and , just run it straight to/from Bedford Park Blvd and have the remain express along the Concourse Line (Manhattan-bound from 6 a.m. to noon and Norwood-bound from noon to 11 p.m.).

 

Obviously whenever an uptown and arrive/leave at the same time at 125, one of them has to get held at 135 St to let the other proceed first, which in turn, delays the uptown and behind them. And a downtown can't enter 145 if a downtown is crossing ahead of it.

[MTA Dude]

Obviously whenever an uptown and arrive/leave at the same time at 125, one of them has to get held at 135 St to let the other proceed first, which in turn, delays the uptown and behind them. And a downtown can't enter 145 if a downtown is crossing ahead of it.

 

Recheck your track maps. Concourse Local has connections to the CPW Express.

[Javier]

Tell me, why can't we add double letters to subway lines?

[MysteriousBtrain]

Recheck your track maps. Concourse Local has connections to the CPW Express.

The track maps show that between 135 Street and 145 Street, the has to share tracks with the for like a few inches then cross over to the middle track to terminate.

Tell me, why can't we add double letters to subway lines?

Look back at the 1980's and research why there was a on 8th Avenue.

Edited December 11, 2014 by MysteriousBtrain