Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[lupojohn]

That's why I like the idea better of having the get to Brooklyn via a new tunnel on Schermerhorn Street that uses the existing Court Street station (with the TM moved elsewhere) and then joins the Fulton Street line at Hoyt-Schemerhorn.  This eliminates the and merge/un-merge east of Hoyt-Schermerhorn since the would use the as-current unused platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn with the and opening on both sides there. 

Let's wait for the to actually get built before we extend it to Brooklyn. I don't get why we're rushing to extend a line that isn't even running yet.

[Wallyhorse]

Let's wait for the to actually get built before we extend it to Brooklyn. I don't get why we're rushing to extend a line that isn't even running yet.

The idea is to have it in place so when the time comes, it can be done.  Plus, it's something I would consider doing sooner if funds became available to do such by having such a new tunnel built and running to at least Seaport, which in turn would shorten what would be needed for Phase 4. 

[Union Tpke]

Have provisions in place for a line down Grand Street in Brooklyn to reduce crowding on the L.

[paulrivera]

Can we post our ideas for equipment assignments here? If so I have some ideas for when SAS opens if the R179's don't show up in time:

 

R46 primarily with R32's supplementing

R46

R160A/R32 mix

R68 (no change)

R160 (no change)

R160 primarily with R68's supplementing

R46

R46 (no change)
/ R32/R160A mix with remaining R42's supplementing

R143 primarily with R160A's supplementing

R160A (no change)

/ R46 and R160 interchangeably

R160

R68A along with some R68's

R68 single cars (no change)

 

I effectively did a R46/R68 swap primarily because it would allow easier interchangeability for an / operation out of Astoria, but I went all in on the swap for fleet commonality at CI and Jamaica.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Can we post our ideas for equipment assignments here? If so I have some ideas for when SAS opens if the R179's don't show up in time:

 

R46 primarily with R32's supplementing

R46

R160A/R32 mix

R68 (no change)

R160 (no change)

R160 primarily with R68's supplementing

R46

R46 (no change)

/ R32/R160A mix with remaining R42's supplementing

R143 primarily with R160A's supplementing

R160A (no change)

/ R46 and R160 interchangeably

R160

R68A along with some R68's

R68 single cars (no change)

 

I effectively did a R46/R68 swap primarily because it would allow easier interchangeability for an / operation out of Astoria, but I went all in on the swap for fleet commonality at CI and Jamaica.

Equipment changes are fine. Overall, the R46/68 swap seems like a good idea being on the as they could be used to change route and destination signs a lot easier. Can't happen today for obvious reasons.

Speaking of the R179s, I propose splitting the R179 order to make two different contract that compose of 4 car sets and 5 car sets. Here's what I have in mind:

R179: Transfered to Alstom and will be composed of 200 cars in 5 car sets. Would be based out of both Jamaica and C.I. yards. 120 cars would be used for n and/or w service, which means both the n and W would be mixed with R160s and the new R179s. The other 80 cars would end up on the F and possibly some of the R and displace some R46s to Pitkin. Only SOME cars would be replaced in this plan, mainly the R42s, and 50 of the remaining R32s will be sent over to ENY to add on to the R32s already there. If necessary, some R46s could also end up on the C due to a shortage in cars or 207 st.

R196: The 4 car sets left over from the R179s. Consists simply of 260 4 car sets that would replace the remaining R32s. The R46s on the C would be able to be freed up and be used on A expansion and/or go back to Jamaica for R service.

Darn this site and the limit of emotions here

Edited August 14, 2015 by MysteriousBtrain

[RollOver]

@MysteriousBtrain, paulrivera, Union Tpke, and Wallyhorse

 

The being virtually or fully 75 footers and the being short-length via 60 footers is disastrous. The is crowded during the busiest times of the day/night like the , and are. No reason why it should use 8-car trains of 75 footers that only have 64 doors on one side which increases passenger boarding and dwelling time at stations, when 10-car trains of 60 footers have 80 doors on one side that allow much less time for passengers to get in and out of the train at stations. Sure, 8-car trains of 75 footers are the same length as 10-car trains of 60 footers, but still. Not to mention 15-20 minute gaps between trains on the system's longest (and one of the busiest) line due to improper passenger flow caused by 75 footers, including their relatively less acceleration and horsepower, which also slows service down on the line, especially at night when the scrapes the walls all the way from end to end and reverse.

 

You should see how many times that the has to make local stops on Central Park West overnight to make up for the lateness of the - which suffers 40+ minute gaps of service. Hell, the even suffers with poor service due to its short-length trains of 60 footers and people constantly holding the doors at both ends of the trains, since many IND stations have their exits at the front and rear. That also causes an extra 5-10 minute waiting time for the . Not fair at all either. Not to mention it has relatively less ridership than the does. I doesn't matter how old the R32s are, nor how "demanding" that the is either. It makes sense to put these cars on the line. They are 60 feet cars, which allow better passenger flow, and are a bit faster than the R46s. The line is also express most of its route and has a long, long outdoor run in Queens.

 

The R32s would also get outside even moreso by being stored at 207th Street and Rockaway Park yards, as well as on the middle track on the outdoor portion of the line. Also, have the line run every 10 minutes off-peak (instead of every 7-8 minutes off-peak), so that way, there wouldn't be a need for rollsign changing at the north end of the line. As for rush hours, that might be a problem, but I'll talk about that later or so. Anyway, off-peak riders in Manhattan and Brooklyn can also take the local too anyway, and the split branches always have crappy service (moreso off-peak than at rush hour in the peak direction) due to the political issue on the Lefferts branch, where riders prefer taking a train that skips stops than having a train that makes all stops and requires transferring at the first opportunity they get. Send all R32s to/from the Rockaways full-time and send all R46s to/from Lefferts (overnight they can also go to/from the Rockaways like the R32s). At the same time, the line would be relatively a mixed of R32s and R46s at all times of the day/night while the part-time is entirely R46s year round. No more people making a mad dash at neither end of the train and the R46s would provide better comfort for the local customers due to their relatively better air-conditioning and roomier interiors. There would also be no need to unnecessarily increase service on the line due to its full-length trainsets year round.

 

http://mtanyctransitfanon.wikia.com/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_car_assignments_(RollOverTheFloor)#September_15.2C_2014

 

http://mtanyctransitfanon.wikia.com/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_shop_facility_assignments_(RollOverTheFloor)

 

http://mtanyctransitfanon.wikia.com/wiki/New_York_City_Subway_rules_and_prohibition_(RollOverTheFloor)

 

I just wish the agency had the foreseen eyesight to keep 240 (not 222) R32s and make the R179 order into mostly 5-car sets, as well as to fix the power issue in the Rockaways so the system's longest line can still have 60 feet cars. You also don't really need to have a high number of spare R32s at rush hour, since they would be much less of them in service during the off-peak than at rush hour. So the point still stands. As I said, the would be half R32s (going to/from the Rocks at all times) and half R46s (going to/from Lefferts days & eves, and Far Rock overnight). It just depends on the amount of trainsets that are in service and are not in service. I've made the line's fleet equalized anyway.

 

They were better off in merging the R110A, R110B, R188, and a small part of the R179 order into the R160 order and the should have been a 510 feet unit long train from the get-go, so that the agency wouldn't had to waste money on converting more than half of the R142A fleet into R188s. Instead, a simple swap between the and would do. I mean they would have gotten Jerome's R142/A fleet CBTC ready (and later equipped) for Corona and for Flushing CBTC project.

 

My change of history as always.

Edited August 14, 2015 by RollOver

[Wallyhorse]

 

  

 

 

 

@MysteriousBtrain, paulrivera, Union Tpke, and Wallyhorse

 

The   being virtually or fully 75 footers and the   being short-length via 60 footers is disastrous. The   is crowded during the busiest times of the day/night like the  ,   and   are. No reason why it should use 8-car trains of 75 footers that only have 64 doors on one side which increases passenger boarding and dwelling time at stations, when 10-car trains of 60 footers have 80 doors on one side that allow much less time for passengers to get in and out of the train at stations. Sure, 8-car trains of 75 footers are the same length as 10-car trains of 60 footers, but still. Not to mention 15-20 minute gaps between trains on the system's longest (and one of the busiest) line due to improper passenger flow caused by 75 footers, including their relatively less acceleration and horsepower, which also slows service down on the line, especially at night when the   scrapes the walls all the way from end to end and reverse.

 

You should see how many times that the   has to make local stops on Central Park West overnight to make up for the lateness of the   - which suffers 40+ minute gaps of service. Hell, the   even suffers with poor service due to its short-length trains of 60 footers and people constantly holding the doors at both ends of the trains, since many IND stations have their exits at the front and rear. That also causes an extra 5-10 minute waiting time for the  . Not fair at all either. Not to mention it has relatively less ridership than the   does. I doesn't matter how old the R32s are, nor how "demanding" that the   is either. It makes sense to put these cars on the line. They are 60 feet cars, which allow better passenger flow, and are a bit faster than the R46s. The line is also express most of its route and has a long, long outdoor run in Queens.

 

The R32s would also get outside even moreso by being stored at 207th Street and Rockaway Park yards, as well as on the middle track on the outdoor portion of the line. Also, have the line run every 10 minutes off-peak (instead of every 7-8 minutes off-peak), so that way, there wouldn't be a need for rollsign changing at the north end of the line. As for rush hours, that might be a problem, but I'll talk about that later or so. Anyway, off-peak riders in Manhattan and Brooklyn can also take the local   too anyway, and the split branches always have crappy service (moreso off-peak than at rush hour in the peak direction) due to the political issue on the Lefferts branch, where riders prefer taking a train that skips stops than having a train that makes all stops and requires transferring at the first opportunity they get. Send all R32s to/from the Rockaways full-time and send all R46s to/from Lefferts (overnight they can also go to/from the Rockaways like the R32s). At the same time, the line would be relatively a mixed of R32s and R46s at all times of the day/night while the part-time   is entirely R46s year round. No more people making a mad dash at neither end of the train and the R46s would provide better comfort for the local customers due to their relatively better air-conditioning and roomier interiors. There would also be no need to unnecessarily increase service on the line due to its full-length trainsets year round.

 

Like it a lot!!

The the idea on the R-179s if it means getting the R46s off the certainly works.  The R-46s probably should be relegated to lines where possible that do not possibly could see trains re-routed to the Eastern Division.

The 75-foot cars were well intended. but have proven to be a major issue.

What I would do is with the R-179s is do enough of the order to be 4-car sets for the Eastern Division, but also do 5-car sets to get them off the .  What I would REALLY want to do, however, is do these as two and three-car sets to have greater flexibility, including in the Eastern Division being able to have trains of nine cars since most Eastern Division stations were built to handle eight 67-foot car trains (nine-car, 540 foot trains in the Eastern Division would be a tight fit, however, it would be doable since the older Standards were 534 feet eight cars). 

Edited August 15, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[paulrivera]

I made an R179 scenario too with some number crunching based on Joe Korner's barn assignments:

R32/R46

R46

R160A with the occasional R32

R68 (no change)

R160 (no change)
R160 with the occasional R68

R46

R46 (no change)

R179/R160A

R143 with the occasional R160/R179

R160A/R179

/ R160/R46 with the occasional R179

R160 with the occasional R179

R68/R68A

R68 single cars (no change)

 

CI today: 341 R68/R68A, 530 R160=871 cars

CI with this idea: 9 R68 singles, 456 R46, 530 R160, 40 R179=1035 cars

 

ENY today*(as of June): 112 R32, 50 R42, 212 R143, 280 R160A=654 cars

ENY with this idea: 212 R143, 188 R160A, 260 R179=660 cars

 

207 today*(as of June): 110 R32, 92 R160=202 cars

207 with this idea: 62 R32, 184 R160A=246 cars

 

Pitkin today: 412 R46

Pitkin with this idea: 296 R46, 160 R32=456 cars

 

Jamaica today: 340 R46, 760 R160=1100 cars

Jamaica with this idea: 140 R68, 200 R68A, 760 R160=1100 cars

 

And yes, the R42's would be retired.

[Wallyhorse]

Obviously in my post above Paul's, I meant to get the R46 cars off the .  

Interesting on the car assignments.

[paulrivera]

As originally ordered, there's not enough R179s to get the R46s off the , and even with R179s and R32s together there still wouldnt be enough.

 

I'm considering equipment as they are originally ordered (40 5-car R179s, 260 4-car R179s) and that there's more R46s (700+) to use than R68s (600+). You can't send R32s to CI since they're banned from all of their routes and there's not enough 5-car R179s coming in, and the R68s in both availability and usefulness won't cut the mustard if you want to bring back the (it's much easier to change between and on an R46 than an R68), and the NTTs need to all be on the since they're the only trains with SAS destinations programmed in.

[RollOver]

The needs 60 footers more than the does (just like the needs 60 footers more than the does) which is why I made all of my history changes the way I did. I might as well cut the R32s' retirement date back from 2022 to 2019 because there are enough cars already, specifically when I merged one R46 car, one R68 car, the entire R110A fleet, the entire R110B fleet, the 126 R188 cars, and a small bit of the R179 fleet into the R160 order.

 

As for the real world, there would only be a few left after the entire R179 order is complete. That's only because they want to keep the current amount of trainsets that the has, even when it gets rerouted to SAS. Plus, the has to come back anyway. It only needs 10 trainsets for operation between Astoria and Whitehall. I don't like the idea of a swap between Jamaica's old cars and Coney Island's new cars, but there's really nothing they can do since they have to get ready for Queens Boulevard CBTC and the R46s would likely not be retire until maybe mid or late 2020s or so. I guess that's okay.

[amtrakacela2001]

ok here is a idea CTA style announcements on new cars coming out soon like the R179s Examples,

Queensboro Plaza is next Doors open on the left at Queensboro Plaza Transfer to And Trains At Queensboro Plaza

This is Queensboro Plaza Transfer to And trains at Queensboro Plaza, This Is A Train To Coney Island   

[TheNewYorkElevated]

ok here is a idea CTA style announcements on new cars coming out soon like the R179s Examples,

Queensboro Plaza is next Doors open on the left at Queensboro Plaza Transfer to And Trains At Queensboro Plaza

This is Queensboro Plaza Transfer to And trains at Queensboro Plaza, This Is A Train To Coney Island

 

This stuff costs money you know. Adding to that, you didn't name the person who would be doing the announcements.

[bobtehpanda]

So, moving on from proposals about subway announcements...

 

Here's a plan for a new Second System based off of the SAS plans I posted earlier.

 

[Union Tpke]

I know this does not look professional, but here is part of my proposed system involving the SAS.

m by spicker613, on Flickr

[Wallyhorse]

So, moving on from proposals about subway announcements...

 

Here's a plan for a new Second System based off of the SAS plans I posted earlier.

 

Excellent!!

 

This covers a LOT of areas not covered by subway right now!

[NewFlyer 230]

Excellent!!

 

This covers a LOT of areas not covered by subway right now!

I wish these extra routes were created. The Queens Blvd line and Flushing lines are pretty much the two heaviest used lines in Queens. I can't stand having to pass up an train or two because the train is just too packed

[RollOver]

-Lorimer Street and Hewes Street stations on the BMT Jamaica Line never existed. Instead, it's Union Avenue-Broadway, where riders will have a free transfer at all times between the BMT Jamaica Line and the IND Crosstown Line. Also, Union Avenue-Broadway would have seen more daily ridership than the exiting Lorimer Street and Hewes Street stations individually.

 

-Aqueduct Racetrack and North Conduit Avenue stations on the IND Rockaway Line never exited either. Instead, it's simply Aqueduct, located between the two existing Aqueduct Racetrack and North Conduit Avenue.

 

I changed my mind about these two changes of mine. I'll leave Aqueduct Racetrack and North Conduit Avenue stations the way they are. I'll just add a platform for the southbound direction, so trains heading towards the Rockaways can stop there.

 

I'll also leave Lorimer and Hewes Street stations the way they are too. I'll just move Lorimer Street about an extra 480 feet to the west so it is directly closer to the Broadway station. The transfer between from the to the is located at the west end of the Lorimer Street platform on the Jamaica Line. Read this very carefully.

 

More changes coming sooner or later.

[Armandito]

A proposal to connect Staten Island to the subway system (after Phase I of the SAS is finished):

 

The will return to active service, but its southern terminal will be the SIR's Tottenville station. Trains will run from Astoria to Whitehall Street, then along Fourth Avenue, and then along the SIR's current route. Between Brooklyn and Staten Island a new tunnel will be constructed from the bellmouths of the unfinished Staten Island Tunnel. Service will be fully local via Broadway, running on the following schedule:

 

Weekdays: between Astoria and Tottenville

 

All other times: between Tottenville and Whitehall Street

[Wallyhorse]

A proposal to connect Staten Island to the subway system (after Phase I of the SAS is finished):

 

The will return to active service, but its southern terminal will be the SIR's Tottenville station. Trains will run from Astoria to Whitehall Street, then along Fourth Avenue, and then along the SIR's current route. Between Brooklyn and Staten Island a new tunnel will be constructed from the bellmouths of the unfinished Staten Island Tunnel. Service will be fully local via Broadway, running on the following schedule:

 

Weekdays: between Astoria and Tottenville

 

All other times: between Tottenville and Whitehall Street

If you can do that, sure, but what I would think would have to happen there would be for such line to go express after 59th Street in Brooklyn (skipping DeKalb Avenue and going over the Bridge) even if it forces the to go local on 4th Avenue in Brooklyn and via the tunnel to Manhattan.  

 

Alternatively, I would have the to Whitehall and create a new line that would run via the Nassau line as follows, possibly with the train becoming its own line at all times:

 

Weekdays (including weekday evenings): Delancey-Essex to Staten Island as noted, via the tunnel after Broad Street (extended Rush Hours to Broadway Junction).

Late Nights and Weekends: Metropolitan Avenue to Staten Island, replacing the current weekend train along Broadway-Brooklyn.

[bobtehpanda]

A proposal to connect Staten Island to the subway system (after Phase I of the SAS is finished):

 

The will return to active service, but its southern terminal will be the SIR's Tottenville station. Trains will run from Astoria to Whitehall Street, then along Fourth Avenue, and then along the SIR's current route. Between Brooklyn and Staten Island a new tunnel will be constructed from the bellmouths of the unfinished Staten Island Tunnel. Service will be fully local via Broadway, running on the following schedule:

 

Weekdays: between Astoria and Tottenville

 

All other times: between Tottenville and Whitehall Street

 

If you're talking about running it as is using the , that would be so slow that it wouldn't even be time competitive with the SIR+Ferry trip we have today.

[Wallyhorse]

If you're talking about running it as is using the , that would be so slow that it wouldn't even be time competitive with the SIR+Ferry trip we have today.

That is why I suggested the idea of making such express between 59th and Atlantic-Barclays, skipping DeKalb and going over the Bridge.

 

With that in mind, perhaps what could then be done would be to do this if you built such an extension to Staten Island:

The becomes the line to Staten Island, running the SIR route, then via 4th Avenue express, skipping DeKalb Avenue and running express in Manhattan before finishing on the SAS (if necessary, track work south of 59th Street in Brooklyn is re-done so the Bay Ridge line can directly access the express track and the Sea Beach line can likewise directly access the local track).

 

The is re-routed off Bay Ridge and replaces the on the Brighton Line to Coney Island and ALSO becomes the main Astoria line, returning to terminating at Ditmars for the first time on a regular basis since 1987.  This would be local throughout and with the returning to being a 24/7 line.

 

The becomes the full-time Queens Boulevard line, running local along 4th Avenue (especially if changes to the tracks can be done) and via the tunnel to Manhattan where it is local.  This goes to 71-Continental even in overnights.

 

The becomes the part-time Whitehall to Astoria line.

 

 

[Armandito]

That is why I suggested the idea of making such express between 59th and Atlantic-Barclays, skipping DeKalb and going over the Bridge.

 

With that in mind, perhaps what could then be done would be to do this if you built such an extension to Staten Island:

The becomes the line to Staten Island, running the SIR route, then via 4th Avenue express, skipping DeKalb Avenue and running express in Manhattan before finishing on the SAS (if necessary, track work south of 59th Street in Brooklyn is re-done so the Bay Ridge line can directly access the express track and the Sea Beach line can likewise directly access the local track).

 

The is re-routed off Bay Ridge and replaces the on the Brighton Line to Coney Island and ALSO becomes the main Astoria line, returning to terminating at Ditmars for the first time on a regular basis since 1987. This would be local throughout and with the returning to being a 24/7 line.

 

The becomes the full-time Queens Boulevard line, running local along 4th Avenue (especially if changes to the tracks can be done) and via the tunnel to Manhattan where it is local. This goes to 71-Continental even in overnights.

 

The becomes the part-time Whitehall to Astoria line.

 

 

How will the stations south of 59th Street/Fourth Avenue be served if that's what you're planning?

[Wallyhorse]

How will the stations south of 59th Street/Fourth Avenue be served if that's what you're planning?

By the if the serves them.  Otherwise, if the does NOT serve the current stations south of 59th Street in Bay Ridge (this is assuming the SAS will be in operation by then):

 

Keep the and as they currently are, EXCEPT for the becoming a LOCAL between Atlantic-Barclays and 59th Street (giving 4th Avenue riders more local service there at all times) and via the tunnel.

 

would be as I would do it, running to/from Staten Island and operating on 4th Avenue as an express (including skipping DeKalb Avenue) before being an express in Manhattan and finishing on the SAS.

 

would become a full-time line, replacing the on the Brighton line and operating seven days as week as follows:

 

Weekdays (5:30 PM-10:00 PM): Coney Island to Astoria via the current route to DeKalb and then via the Bridge to Canal and local after that.

 

Late Nights (10:00 PM-5:30 AM) and Weekends: Coney Island to 96th/125th via the (Q)'s current route to DeKalb and then via the bridge (weekend daytime and late evenings) or tunnel (overnights) to 57th before going with the on the SAS to supplement the during those hours.

 

Alternatively with the , it would run Coney Island to Whitehall Street via the (Q)'s current route late nights and weekends and the would become a 24/7 line, running from Brighton Beach to Bedford Park Boulevard at all times, which would solve a separate issue with CPW many complain about and has been noted with the in The Bronx.

Edited August 22, 2015 by Wallyhorse

[Armandito]

By the if the serves them. Otherwise, if the does NOT serve the current stations south of 59th Street in Bay Ridge (this is assuming the SAS will be in operation by then):

 

Keep the and as they currently are, EXCEPT for the becoming a LOCAL between Atlantic-Barclays and 59th Street (giving 4th Avenue riders more local service there at all times) and via the tunnel.

 

would be as I would do it, running to/from Staten Island and operating on 4th Avenue as an express (including skipping DeKalb Avenue) before being an express in Manhattan and finishing on the SAS.

 

would become a full-time line, replacing the on the Brighton line and operating seven days as week as follows:

 

Weekdays (5:30 PM-10:00 PM): Coney Island to Astoria via the current route to DeKalb and then via the Bridge to Canal and local after that.

 

Late Nights (10:00 PM-5:30 AM) and Weekends: Coney Island to 96th/125th via the (Q)'s current route to DeKalb and then via the bridge (weekend daytime and late evenings) or tunnel (overnights) to 57th before going with the on the SAS to supplement the during those hours.

 

Alternatively with the , it would run Coney Island to Whitehall Street via the (Q)'s current route late nights and weekends and the would become a 24/7 line, running from Brighton Beach to Bedford Park Boulevard at all times, which would solve a separate issue with CPW many complain about and has been noted with the in The Bronx.

Instead of rerouting the current service patterns of Broadway's subway routes, I'd go for creating a new subway route via Nassau Street as proposed before. However, my plan will be as follows:

 

Chambers Street to Tottenville at all times, stopping at DeKalb Avenue and running express between Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center and 59th Street, and then all SIR stops in Staten Island. The will now become a local in Brooklyn and will also stop at DeKalb Avenue at all times.

Edited August 26, 2015 by lara8710