Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

On 2/25/2018 at 8:01 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

A weekday ridership average considers any one of 5 days: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. A weekend day ridership average considers any one of 2 days: Saturday and Sunday. HOWEVER, this is not a comparison of a random average weekday's ridership to a random average weekend day's ridership (which would only be 1 day—Saturday or Sunday), in which case an individual weekday would reflect a higher average than an individual weekend day. I'm collectively referring to the weekend as 2 days as reflected in the MTA's statistical report under "Average Weekend," not Saturday's and Sunday's individually. Hope that clears up any confusion.

That doesn't really mean that weekends have higher ridership than weekdays though, given that the average weekday ridership measures a total day, whereas the average weekend ridership measures two.

[Wallyhorse]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

That doesn't really mean that weekends have higher ridership than weekdays though, given that the average weekday ridership measures a total day, whereas the average weekend ridership measures two.

Right, but neither weekend day is higher than any weekday, with Saturday being about 60% of the average weekday.  

That said and as noted upthread, you could have some sort of a rush hour on Saturdays from say 1:00-6:00 PM (not 3:00-7:30 that I posted earlier) as a lot of people do work Saturdays while many more do make trips out (though not like a weekday obviously).  

[Around the Horn]

This is more a question than a proposal but how many trains per hour can run on the  assuming the following?

 CPW Local/6 Av/Brighton Express (weekdays)

 CPW/6 Av Express/Brighton Local

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/Sea Beach (weekdays)

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/West End 

 Astoria/Broadway Local (24/7; every other rush hour train to Brooklyn, to CI via Sea Beach weekends/late nights)

(The  would have to run at least the current combined number of N/W TPH)

[P3F]

21 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

This is more a question than a proposal but how many trains per hour can run on the  assuming the following?

 CPW Local/6 Av/Brighton Express (weekdays)

 CPW/6 Av Express/Brighton Local

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/Sea Beach (weekdays)

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/West End 

 Astoria/Broadway Local (24/7; every other rush hour train to Brooklyn, to CI via Sea Beach weekends/late nights)

(The  would have to run at least the current combined number of N/W TPH)

These are my guesses. Look up the exact terminal capacities of Brighton Beach, Coney Island, and Astoria if you want more precise numbers.

10 (Limited by Brighton Beach)

, ,  12-14 (Limited by Coney Island)

 14-15 (Limited by Ditmars Blvd)

Edited March 6, 2018 by P3F

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, P3F said:

10 (Limited by Brighton Beach)

, ,  12-14 (Limited by Coney Island)

I’m shocked. Brighton Beach can only do 10, but Coney Island can do 12–14? i’ve passed by those switches countless times. The setup seems to disadvantage both of those terminals equally. How does Coney Island get more mileage out of its switches?

[P3F]

6 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I’m shocked. Brighton Beach can only do 10, but Coney Island can do 12–14? i’ve passed by those switches countless times. The setup seems to disadvantage both of those terminals equally. How does Coney Island get more mileage out of its switches?

Keep in mind that those were simply my guesses, based on experience. None of the terminals in the area have high capacity, but the  has always seemed to enter the terminal exceptionally slowly, more so than the  or  at Coney Island.

If there's been an actual study of the upper limits at these terminals, I'd like to see it as it would certainly help with discussion about service in the area.

[CDTA]

By installing switches just south of 50th St, and between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand St (This would be fairly difficult to do southbound but northbound is fine) you have the run over the 8th Ave Express, and the run via 63rd St and the 6th Ave Express. That, combined with moving the to 53rd St would completely segregate the , which allows for a very high degree of operational flexibility. 

Something wrong on the...

...8th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...6th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...8th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can all be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...6th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

 

[bobtehpanda]

14 hours ago, CDTA said:

By installing switches just south of 50th St, and between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand St (This would be fairly difficult to do southbound but northbound is fine) you have the run over the 8th Ave Express, and the run via 63rd St and the 6th Ave Express. That, combined with moving the to 53rd St would completely segregate the , which allows for a very high degree of operational flexibility. 

Something wrong on the...

...8th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...6th Ave Local? Just run all the s via the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...8th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can all be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

...6th Ave Express? Move the and to the local track, then move the to the , which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

 

It brings back the original problem of overloading 53/Lex though.

In my opinion, you could actually solve the problem today by running the following:

- Concourse, CPW/8th Av express

- 207/168, CPW local

- 60th St/Astoria

This basically effectively turns the QBL into a couple of unlinked systems:

DeKalb -

Fulton -

Queens -

This would be pretty good until a turquoise service (would interline with both and  ) so at that point you'd need

Brighton

- 4th Av local, Broadway local

- Broadway express, 4th Av express

- 8th Av local, 53 St, QBL local

- 6th Av local, 53 St, QBL express

Which would get you the following splits

6th Av express -

Fulton -

Queens local -

Broadway local -  

Brooklyn -    

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 7:08 PM, Around the Horn said:

This is more a question than a proposal but how many trains per hour can run on the  assuming the following?

 CPW Local/6 Av/Brighton Express (weekdays)

 CPW/6 Av Express/Brighton Local

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/Sea Beach (weekdays)

 2 Av/Broadway/4th Av Express/West End 

 Astoria/Broadway Local (24/7; every other rush hour train to Brooklyn, to CI via Sea Beach weekends/late nights)

(The  would have to run at least the current combined number of N/W TPH)

I was going to ask what would serve Sea Beach on weekends/late nights, but then I saw it would be the .

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

It brings back the original problem of overloading 53/Lex though.

In my opinion, you could actually solve the problem today by running the following:

- Concourse, CPW/8th Av express

- 207/168, CPW local

- 60th St/Astoria

This basically effectively turns the QBL into a couple of unlinked systems:

DeKalb -

Fulton -

Queens -

This would be pretty good until a turquoise service (would interline with both and  ) so at that point you'd need

Brighton

- 4th Av local, Broadway local

- Broadway express, 4th Av express

- 8th Av local, 53 St, QBL local

- 6th Av local, 53 St, QBL express

Which would get you the following splits

6th Av express -

Fulton -

Queens local -

Broadway local -  

Brooklyn -    

 

Speaking of the , why does it need to be eliminated and the  need to be made all-local if there’s a turquoise ( V ) service? And why have the  and  all running via the 53rd St tunnel? Even if it’s possible with CBTC, I think having all three of them there would be overkill.

Edited March 7, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

41 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I was going to ask what would serve Sea Beach on weekends/late nights, but then I saw it would be the .

Speaking of the , why does it need to be eliminated and the  need to be made all-local if there’s a turquoise ( V ) service? And why have the  and  all running via the 53rd St tunnel? Even if it’s possible with CBTC, I think having all three of them there would be overkill.

Let me clarify a bunch of things: 

and  run via 63 St and so completely avoids the  . The needs to be made all local to avoid interlining with the  , which meshes with the Brooklyn network.

Brooklyn's 4th Av services would look like this:

- Broadway express, Sea Beach

- Broadway local, West End

- same as today

- same as today, terminates at Whitehall

 

Edited March 7, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Let me clarify a bunch of things: 

and  run via 63 St and so completely avoids the  . The needs to be made all local to avoid interlining with the  , which meshes with the Brooklyn network.

Brooklyn's 4th Av services would look like this:

- Broadway express, Sea Beach

- Broadway local, West End

- same as today

- same as today, terminates at Whitehall

 

Then you’re just pushing the problem to the .

[LGA Link N Train]

@bobtehpanda I agree with what you're saying however there are a few things that don't click. 

as a CPW/Concourse line. Would 145 st be modified? 

at 168 st. If they're going both local then wouldn't that create a merge. 

You can't deinterline Broadway without eliminating the

and should go to Astoria. 

63 st won't be able to handle and all together.

And I'd do QBL as Express being and via 53. via 63 and Bypass.

via 63 and QB local and since I'm proposing a elimination with both the and to Astoria. I can't think of any other line other than t he (I don't fully recommend this)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Why even have separate  and  designations then? By sending both the  and  to Astoria and putting the  back in the Montague Tunnel and fully local, you've basically made the lower 4th Ave local and the Sea Beach Line into two branches of the same line. You could just have the letter  for both branches, like the  with Lefferts and Rockaway. Then recycle the letter R for the QB local via 63rd St and 2nd Ave (with a new line color of turquoise, of course).

De-interlining Broadway isn’t impossible without eliminating the . How frequent would the V (or R like I suggested in the previous paragraph) run, being that it would be the only local under your plan?

Edited March 7, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[officiallyliam]

What about this service plan? This will work until SAS phase 3 is built (clearly a ways off) and assumes no Queens bypass, and minimal construction. There are a couple of problems, which I'll mention below.

Norwood to Lefferts/Far Rockaway via Concourse/8 Avenue/Fulton Express

168th to Brighton Beach via CPW Local/6 Avenue/Brighton Express

Bedford Park/167th to Euclid via Concourse Local/CPW and 8 Av Express/Fulton Local

Inwood to CI via CPW Local/6 Avenue Express/Brighton Local

Jamaica Center to World Trade via QB Express/53rd/8 Avenue Local

179th to CI via QB Express/53rd/6 Avenue/Culver Local, possibly Hillside Express with an extension to 179th

Forest Hills (179th?) to Middle Village via QB/63rd/6 Avenue/Jamaica and Myrtle Local

96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/Sea Beach Express

96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/West End Express

Astoria to Bay Ridge via Broadway/Montague/4 Avenue Local - based out of 36th Street Yard

Astoria to Whitehall, peak hours to Bay Ridge via Broadway Local - also at 36th Yard

A side note: would upper Culver riders flip out if the went express and a much-more-frequent and full-length was the local? This would allow the to run at almost-maximum capacity, and the de-interlining (above) would allow more reliable service through Cranberry to absorb some of the riders from Park Slope, and a more reliable 4th Avenue service would let more people change at 4th and 9th. Long-term, Bergen lower could be reopened. I get this would be quite a long shot, but is it even worth trying?

Problems:

Sending all the QB Locals to 63rd, while operationally efficient, could be practically poor, since 53rd will end up full while 63rd will continue to be underused. It also raises the problem of having no QB Local serve Long Island City directly, since 63rd skirts the center of the area by running to Queensbridge instead. It will allow, though, for better and service by simplifying the merges on 53rd St, and a Queens Plaza and 36th. Do I support the bypass being built? Probably (there are issues). But it isn't even in the works now unfortunately, so I'm not trying to plan in a way that is dependent on its construction.

This simply won't work once SAS phase 3 opens, as the northern section couldn't support the , , and . 72nd could have been used to turn s, but that won't happen now. And the SAS to Queens service, while attractive, will create more ugly merges at 63rd Street and 36th in Queens, unless a bypass is built, which is a long way off. This could be mitigated by sending the back to Astoria and cutting the . Hopefully, though, this could be done with the going express at 57th and wouldn't mean a return of the horrible 34th/42nd merge.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Overall, I like it. Though you’d either have to extend the upper level platforms at 50th and 8th out to meet the  on the express tracks, or close the upper level platforms entirely in order to have them both run express on 8th Ave. Though it would be great to have them both be 8th Ave expresses, because then they’d no longer have to merge at Canal. Just getting rid of that merge would help improve service on both lines. 

As for the  alone between Church and Bergen, I get the feeling it probably wouldn’t go over so well with upper Culver riders, much like having the  as one of the two QB locals proved to be unpopular with riders (which is why I’d never suggest bringing the  back to QB). And if you have an  at “almost-maximum capacity,” then you really should have at least half the  trains running local between Bergen and Church.

Speaking of Queens Blvd, I feel it won’t work with just the  as the local. Especially with only 480-foot trains and its flat junction with the , which limits  service frequency. The rest of the plan I can (pardon the pun) get on board with.

[officiallyliam]

16 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Overall, I like it. Though you’d either have to extend the upper level platforms at 50th and 8th out to meet the  on the express tracks, or close the upper level platforms entirely in order to have them both run express on 8th Ave. Though it would be great to have them both be 8th Ave expresses, because then they’d no longer have to merge at Canal. Just getting rid of that merge would help improve service on both lines. 

As for the  alone between Church and Bergen, I get the feeling it probably wouldn’t go over so well with upper Culver riders, much like having the  as one of the two QB locals proved to be unpopular with riders (which is why I’d never suggest bringing the  back to QB). And if you have an  at “almost-maximum capacity,” then you really should have at least half the  trains running local between Bergen and Church.

Speaking of Queens Blvd, I feel it won’t work with just the  as the local. Especially with only 480-foot trains and its flat junction with the , which limits  service frequency. The rest of the plan I can (pardon the pun) get on board with.

I was thinking of a platform extension at 50th Street to allow s and s to stop there, since making everyone at 50th (a relatively well-used station) go to and from the lower level platforms would be a pain.

Here's the thing about the being the Culver local: fundamentally, it is a bad transit plan and one I wouldn't ever suggest if we were building the network from scratch today (same with the layout of QB). People primarily want to go to Manhattan, not turn away from Manhattan at the last second as the does. That being said, though, I think that Manhattan-bound riders across the board would be better off because of the increased reliability. Lower Culver and 6th Avenue riders get better service, and upper Culver riders have a cross-platform interchange at Hoyt (which wouldn't be as crowded, since a full-length would distribute transferring riders more evenly along the platform) to more reliable and service. The plan simply makes the best in terms of train frequency out of the poor track layout that the IND left us. As for sending half the s local, I still disagree - because a frequent (maybe 15 TPH) service would have to fumigate at Church in the way of southbound s. The as the sole local means that its fumigation won't disrupt service and will keep a cross-platform transfer to service at Church and 7th Avenues.

The 480-foot train is an issue, even if the runs as frequently as it possibly could. That being said, the loss of 2 cars could possibly be made up for by the fact that QB will be far more reliable without the merging in at Queens Plaza and the no longer capped by having to share river tunnel capacity with the more-popular . The flat junction at Myrtle is more of a problem, though; this could be alleviated by starting and terminating some rush-hour s at 2nd Avenue, especially in the AM rush, where there is little demand going to Brooklyn. In a more long-term basis, the flat junction can actually be eliminated relatively easily, with a bit of new construction: the new Queens-bound track will diverge to the right from the main line at Lewis Avenue, making a left onto Myrtle and running into one side of the old upper-level platform. This shouldn't cost too much, as the only properly new construction will be a few hundred feet of viaduct between Broadway and Lewis and Myrtle Avenue.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

Then you’re just pushing the problem to the .

What problem? If you do what I say, the goes from Astoria to Bay Ridge fully local, only ever interacting with the and  .

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Why even have separate  and  designations then? By sending both the  and  to Astoria and putting the  back in the Montague Tunnel and fully local, you've basically made the lower 4th Ave local and the Sea Beach Line into two branches of the same line. You could just have the letter  for both branches, like the  with Lefferts and Rockaway. Then recycle the letter R for the QB local via 63rd St and 2nd Ave (with a new line color of turquoise, of course).

De-interlining Broadway isn’t impossible without eliminating the . How frequent would the V (or R like I suggested in the previous paragraph) run, being that it would be the only local under your plan?

Now that you mention it, the turquoise kind of screws up everything with de-interlining.

Honestly, this is getting super foamy, but perhaps the Bypass service should have its own tunnel under the river to match both sides evenly. Right now there are three pairs of B-Division tunnels under the East River and three pairs of tracks in both Manhattan and Queens for both to connect to.

[RR503]

45 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Now that you mention it, the turquoise kind of screws up everything with de-interlining.

Honestly, this is getting super foamy, but perhaps the Bypass service should have its own tunnel under the river to match both sides evenly. Right now there are three pairs of B-Division tunnels under the East River and three pairs of tracks in both Manhattan and Queens for both to connect to.

I mean, if you’re really gonna get into it, I’d connect a separated pair of Bypass tunnels with 2nd avenue and Broadway Express. Sure, you get a merge, but with the Broadway connection, you give the non- Broadway exp service a northern terminal, thereby bringing all Manhattan trunks to capacity. 

Edited March 8, 2018 by RR503

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

What about this service plan? This will work until SAS phase 3 is built (clearly a ways off) and assumes no Queens bypass, and minimal construction. There are a couple of problems, which I'll mention below.

Norwood to Lefferts/Far Rockaway via Concourse/8 Avenue/Fulton Express

168th to Brighton Beach via CPW Local/6 Avenue/Brighton Express

Bedford Park/167th to Euclid via Concourse Local/CPW and 8 Av Express/Fulton Local

Inwood to CI via CPW Local/6 Avenue Express/Brighton Local

Jamaica Center to World Trade via QB Express/53rd/8 Avenue Local

179th to CI via QB Express/53rd/6 Avenue/Culver Local, possibly Hillside Express with an extension to 179th

Forest Hills (179th?) to Middle Village via QB/63rd/6 Avenue/Jamaica and Myrtle Local

96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/Sea Beach Express

96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/West End Express

Astoria to Bay Ridge via Broadway/Montague/4 Avenue Local - based out of 36th Street Yard

Astoria to Whitehall, peak hours to Bay Ridge via Broadway Local - also at 36th Yard

A side note: would upper Culver riders flip out if the went express and a much-more-frequent and full-length was the local? This would allow the to run at almost-maximum capacity, and the de-interlining (above) would allow more reliable service through Cranberry to absorb some of the riders from Park Slope, and a more reliable 4th Avenue service would let more people change at 4th and 9th. Long-term, Bergen lower could be reopened. I get this would be quite a long shot, but is it even worth trying?

Problems:

Sending all the QB Locals to 63rd, while operationally efficient, could be practically poor, since 53rd will end up full while 63rd will continue to be underused. It also raises the problem of having no QB Local serve Long Island City directly, since 63rd skirts the center of the area by running to Queensbridge instead. It will allow, though, for better and service by simplifying the merges on 53rd St, and a Queens Plaza and 36th. Do I support the bypass being built? Probably (there are issues). But it isn't even in the works now unfortunately, so I'm not trying to plan in a way that is dependent on its construction.

This simply won't work once SAS phase 3 opens, as the northern section couldn't support the , , and . 72nd could have been used to turn s, but that won't happen now. And the SAS to Queens service, while attractive, will create more ugly merges at 63rd Street and 36th in Queens, unless a bypass is built, which is a long way off. This could be mitigated by sending the back to Astoria and cutting the . Hopefully, though, this could be done with the going express at 57th and wouldn't mean a return of the horrible 34th/42nd merge.

 

Your proposal to have the  and  swap northern terminals with the  and  has merit. Having  trains terminate at Tremont Avenue would be more practical however because Manhattan-bound  trains would be stuck behind  trains awaiting departure at 167th Street in that configuration—a constant source of delays. Under this proposal,  trains would operate between Ozone Park/Far Rockaway in Queens to Norwood in The Bronx via CPW express with  trains operating between Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn to Tremont Avenue in The Bronx during non-rush hours. On weekdays, during rush hours in the peak direction,  trains would run express between 145th Street and Tremont Avenue towards Norwood with  trains running local along the Grand Concourse, terminating at Bedford Park Boulevard. The present-day portion of the  between 145th Street and 168th Street will be served by  trains with  trains providing service north of 168th Street to Inwood, replacing the current  service routing.

[officiallyliam]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I mean, if you’re really gonna get into it, I’d connect a separated pair of Bypass tunnels with 2nd avenue and Broadway Express. Sure, you get a merge, but with the Broadway connection, you give the non- Broadway exp service a northern terminal, thereby bringing all Manhattan trunks to capacity. 

Where would the new tunnel be placed in order to connect to Broadway Express? The best alignments that I could think of for a new tunnel would be either 1. via 38th Street, then following the LIRR ROW through Long Island City and continuing as the bypass or 2. at 50th Street, following 45th Road through the Court Square area and turning into the LIRR path. Connecting either of these to Second Avenue would be easy, but getting either to Broadway would be difficult. A third possible alignment could be to follow 79th Street in Manhattan to 35th Avenue in Queens, then into the LIRR, but this raises the problems of connecting it to the existing SAS and also creates a chokepoint where and services must share tracks between 72nd and the tunnel junction.

6 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Having  trains terminate at Tremont Avenue would be more practical however because Manhattan-bound  trains would be stuck behind  trains awaiting departure at 167th Street in that configuration—a constant source of delays.

Didn't remember Tremont - you're right, that would be better, plus Tremont is more of a destination than 167th. How feasible would it be to add a crossover between the northbound Concourse local and the middle track south of Tremont? This would eliminate fumigation delays as s terminate and s get stuck behind.

[RR503]

Just now, officiallyliam said:

Where would the new tunnel be placed in order to connect to Broadway Express? The best alignments that I could think of for a new tunnel would be either 1. via 38th Street, then following the LIRR ROW through Long Island City and continuing as the bypass or 2. at 50th Street, following 45th Road through the Court Square area and turning into the LIRR path. Connecting either of these to Second Avenue would be easy, but getting either to Broadway would be difficult. A third possible alignment could be to follow 79th Street in Manhattan to 35th Avenue in Queens, then into the LIRR, but this raises the problems of connecting it to the existing SAS and also creates a chokepoint where and services must share tracks between 72nd and the tunnel junction.

I’d use the Bway local-CPW provisions north of 57 to burrow a line down 68th (or some street thereabouts). Then we can get SAS before the  merged in, and connect to the . Does little to serve new areas, but gets you the capacity. In terms of the engineering, though, it’d be one hell of a job. You’re weaving around a zillion subway lines+under tall buildings. 

2 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Didn't remember Tremont - you're right, that would be better, plus Tremont is more of a destination than 167th. How feasible would it be to add a crossover between the northbound Concourse local and the middle track south of Tremont? This would eliminate fumigation delays as s terminate and s get stuck behind.

At that point, better just to extend to BPB IMO. It’s actually configured to be a terminal. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

I agree with @RR503; the Tremont Avenue station does not have any crew quarters for employees to be dispatched out of. He recommended having  trains terminate further north at Bedford Park Boulevard for this reason, which, justifiably, is more suitable. As far as extending the  to Jamaica–179th Street, it could do a number in alleviating the bottleneck at Forest Hills.

Edited March 8, 2018 by AlgorithmOfTruth

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I’d use the Bway local-CPW provisions north of 57 to burrow a line down 68th (or some street thereabouts). Then we can get SAS before the  merged in, and connect to the . Does little to serve new areas, but gets you the capacity. In terms of the engineering, though, it’d be one hell of a job. You’re weaving around a zillion subway lines+under tall buildings. 

At that point, better just to extend to BPB IMO. It’s actually configured to be a terminal. 

I think what one could do is build a second level at 72 St for the (Q), and then veer east at 75th, with stops at 21st, 31st  , and Steinway  .

[CenSin]

20 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I think what one could do is build a second level at 72 St for the (Q), and then veer east at 75th, with stops at 21st, 31st  , and Steinway  .

Where does it go from there?

[Union Tpke]

35 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Where does it go from there?

Northern?