Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

3 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Here's an extension thats not feasible what so ever but one that came in mind, now that I think of it. 

Extending the from Lefferts Boulevard to Van Wyck Expressway to connect with the AirTrain to JFK. 

But I don't know what this'll mean for the Rockaway Beach Branch (South of Liberty Avenue)

Any thoughts or input?

It just means that all trains will connect with the JFK AirTrain, but at different points.

Of course, Port Authority can’t be happy about maintaining two stations for the connection. It seems to be that the only reason for the branch to Howard Beach is because there is a subway line there. Port Authority could put that line out to pasture unless the MTA runs some other non- service to it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Port Authority didn’t have to build the AirTrain branch to Howard Beach if infrequent service there was a concern. They already knew the  was only “half a service” there. I’m not sure what kind of non- service they can run out there. Suggesting extending the  or  down that way is now akin to beating a dead horse on this forum. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R68OnBroadway]

18 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Port Authority didn’t have to build the AirTrain branch to Howard Beach if infrequent service there was a concern. They already knew the  was only “half a service” there. I’m not sure what kind of non- service they can run out there. Suggesting extending the  or  down that way is now akin to beating a dead horse on this forum. 

The Airtrain to the  probably was built only for people heading to south-central Brooklyn, while the  covers central Queens and Manhattan and the  /  cover north Brooklyn and southern Queens.

[CenSin]

Overkill solution for a high throughput line that’s triple-tracked at one end and double-tracked at the other:

The design could hypothetically support 60 trains per hour one way for a brief period until the yard at either end runs out of trains to send out or the local track in the other direction starts limiting throughput due to saturation.

[LGA Link N Train]

Here's an idea that could be a consideration. Since Forest Hills is a bad terminal, why not make it a local station for normal times (unless there's a G.O.) and do the same for Parsons Blvd so the and could be extended to Jamaica-179 Street. Ofor course, riders and crew would not like this, but this would only be good to give trains a Proper Terminal. Any thoughts??

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Here's an idea that could be a consideration. Since Forest Hills is a bad terminal, why not make it a local station for normal times (unless there's a G.O.) and do the same for Parsons Blvd so the and could be extended to Jamaica-179 Street. Ofor course, riders and crew would not like this, but this would only be good to give trains a Proper Terminal. Any thoughts??

Many of the terminals in use today were not intended to be terminals. It’s obvious from the history, expansion plans, and switch arrangements/geometries.

• Norwood–205 Street ()
• 168 Street ()
• Parkchester ()
• Forest Hills–71 Avenue ()
• Jamaica–Parsons/Archer ()
• Court Square ()
• Euclid Avenue ()
• Crown Heights–Utica Avenue ()
• Prospect Park ()
• Brighton Beach ()

[RR503]

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Here's an idea that could be a consideration. Since Forest Hills is a bad terminal, why not make it a local station for normal times (unless there's a G.O.) and do the same for Parsons Blvd so the and could be extended to Jamaica-179 Street. Ofor course, riders and crew would not like this, but this would only be good to give trains a Proper Terminal. Any thoughts??

While juice may taste better in Florida, fumigation doesn’t work better at 179.

While you do indeed have 2 tracks on which you can empty trains, you have nearly double the tph arriving on those tracks, filling all extant capacity. What’s more, because  and  trains would have significantly lengthened routes, there would be a higher chance of them arriving at the terminal bunched, leading to delays as they are cleared for the relays. 

In general, I think solving ops problems with service pattern changes is a cop out. Here, we could either decrease  reliability or we could just fix our fumigation procedures using doubly crewed relays, platform conductors, etc. Given the disruptiveness of the former option, I see no need to pursue it unless all other viable options have been exhausted. 

[R68OnBroadway]

I know Whitehall is a rather poor terminal, but if City Hall lower is built out, what would its turning capacity be?

[4 via Mosholu]

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

Many of the terminals in use today were not intended to be terminals. It’s obvious from the history, expansion plans, and switch arrangements/geometries.

• Norwood–205 Street ()
• 168 Street ()
• Parkchester ()
• Forest Hills–71 Avenue ()
• Jamaica–Parsons/Archer ()
• Court Square ()
• Euclid Avenue ()
• Crown Heights–Utica Avenue ()
• Prospect Park ()
• Brighton Beach ()

For one thing, you are right in saying that 205 Street was never meant to be a terminal; its part of the reason why the D train tends to be slow coming downtown compared to the B train. 168 Street is perhaps a poor terminal, but it does a decent job turning the C train. East 177th Street is a very special case - meaning that they would have sent the 6 express and local to Pelham Bay Park, but they decided not to due to wanting to create more space for the 6 Express to terminate at Pelham. They even have crew quarters there to make known that it is as a result of the 6 Express running to Pelham Bay Park.

For Continental, I really think it is perhaps the last place where there seems to be a lack of timers approaching the stop. i don't know what the issue with Continental is, because everything with Continental seems to be just okay, at least from the various times I needed to go over there.

I understand Jamaica Center completely because the Archer lines were supposed to be longer than that. Court Square only makes sense because the V train was in the way of the G train. Euclid Avenue seems like a decent relay terminal to me as well as Crown Heights Utica. Prospect Park does not look like a relay terminal in any way. Brighton Beach is perhaps give and take because there are B trains that intentionally enter service from the small yard between Ocean Parkway and Brighton Beach.

Flatbush was definitely not built to be a terminal, but it has crew quarters. I only wish the stop was reconfigured so that it could be a real terminal.

[bobtehpanda]

To be fair to Continental, there is basically no terminal that turns around the maximum trains that you can have on a pair of tracks (30TPH). The only one that I can think of that might be able to actually do it would be Brooklyn Bridge, since there's no complicated fumigation or relaying or terrible crossovers or anything. But it takes two (terminals) to tango.

[RR503]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair to Continental, there is basically no terminal that turns around the maximum trains that you can have on a pair of tracks (30TPH). The only one that I can think of that might be able to actually do it would be Brooklyn Bridge, since there's no complicated fumigation or relaying or terrible crossovers or anything. But it takes two (terminals) to tango.

96th St and Hudson Yards are both terminals that actually exceed in turning capacity the number of trains their line’s tracks can handle — they’re both 30+ IIRC.

And again, all the fumigation terminals mentioned could turn 30tph if they operated well. We just can’t seem to learn to relay.  

 

[Lawrence St]

4 minutes ago, RR503 said:

96th St and Hudson Yards are both terminals that actually exceed in turning capacity the number of trains their line’s tracks can handle — they’re both 30+ IIRC.

And again, all the fumigation terminals mentioned could turn 30tph if they operated well. We just can’t seem to learn to relay.  

 

This I agree with. There should be no reason why it takes half an hour to relay at Forest Hills when it takes 5 minutes to relay at 168th St.

[Lil 57]

One thing I would definitely do is Reconstructure the lines in Queens. The  would go to Leffords Blvd and The  would go to Far Rockaway full time. (There will still be Rush hour  trips to Rockaway Park. This should reduce the 20+ min headways in the Rockaways/Lefferts during off-peak hours. Late nights, The   would become a shuttle from Broadway Junction to/from Leffers Blvd.

 

[Lil 57]

On 5/19/2018 at 2:46 PM, CenSin said:

Many of the terminals in use today were not intended to be terminals. It’s obvious from the history, expansion plans, and switch arrangements/geometries.

• Norwood–205 Street ()
• 168 Street ()
• Parkchester ()
• Forest Hills–71 Avenue ()
• Jamaica–Parsons/Archer ()
• Court Square ()
• Euclid Avenue ()
• Crown Heights–Utica Avenue ()
• Prospect Park ()
• Brighton Beach ()

Also, the 95th St  terminal wasn't intended to be a terminal. 

 

[BreeddekalbL]

wouldn't 179th on the fit onto that list too?

while i am here about 179th

where is the provision for extension?

would it be the local tracks or the express tracks that lead to it?

[Wallyhorse]

18 hours ago, Lil 57 said:

One thing I would definitely do is Reconstructure the lines in Queens. The  would go to Leffords Blvd and The  would go to Far Rockaway full time. (There will still be Rush hour  trips to Rockaway Park. This should reduce the 20+ min headways in the Rockaways/Lefferts during off-peak hours. Late nights, The   would become a shuttle from Broadway Junction to/from Leffers Blvd.

If you do the  that way, here's how I would do it:

A 4/3 split of every seven trains to the Rockaways (four to Far Rockaway and three to Rockaway Park).  Overnights, you would have 2 TPH from each for 4 TPH total OR 3TPH from Far Rockaway and the Rockaway Park Shuttle late nights OR 3TPH on the  with the  running the old round-robin route, timed so there is enough time to transfer at Beach 67th between the  from Rockaway Park and the from Far Rockaway.

The being 24/7 to Lefferts (no late night shuttle) with additional peak-direction service to Lefferts to appease those who want their one-seat express ride on the .  

[Lil 57]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If you do the  that way, here's how I would do it:

A 4/3 split of every seven trains to the Rockaways (four to Far Rockaway and three to Rockaway Park).  Overnights, you would have 2 TPH from each for 4 TPH total OR 3TPH from Far Rockaway and the Rockaway Park Shuttle late nights OR 3TPH on the  with the  running the old round-robin route, timed so there is enough time to transfer at Beach 67th between the  from Rockaway Park and the from Far Rockaway.

The being 24/7 to Lefferts (no late night shuttle) with additional peak-direction service to Lefferts to appease those who want their one-seat express ride on the .  

what was the old round-robin route?

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, Lil 57 said:

what was the old round-robin route?

This would actually be a variation of it:

Back in the day (1970's and early 1980's), the used to be Lefferts all times while late nights, Rockaway was a shuttle on both ends.  What they did back then in place of the Rockaway Park shuttle (which actually was the in those days outside of rush hours) was to have the Rockaway Branch of the serve as a round-robin shuttle between the Rockaways and Euclid Avenue, running from Euclid to Rockaway Park first and then to Far Rockaway before heading back to Euclid.  This version would be the same except it would be going to 207 at all times while the is 24/7 to/from Lefferts if it were done that way. 

[BreeddekalbL]

I have an interesting Proposal

Puropose of elimnating switching from express to local and back at 34th street

Goes to astoria full time with increased service; Weekday extension to Brooklyn 9th ave via 4th ave local

goes to 2nd ave subway full time express in manhattan and brooklyn

Regular Service

regular service

Edited May 23, 2018 by BreeddekalbL

[CenSin]

33 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

New Update:

 

Service Change

Posted: 05/23/2018  5:29PM

Some southbound and trains are stopping along the  line from 59 St-Columbus Circle to W 4 St-Washington Sqthen along the line to Coney Island-Stillwell Av.

Some southbound trains are stopping along the line from Jackson Hts-Roosevelt Av to Court Sq then along the line to Bergen St.

Southbound , , and Metropolitan Av bound trains are running with delays.

These service changes are because of switch problems at 57 St.

I wonder if we could get more reliability by designing these switch mechanisms as if they were decameters apart for redundancy. Clearly, the switches at 59 Street–Columbus Circle and Queens Plaza aren’t affected by the malfunction and neither are the switches in close proximity at 5 Avenue–53 Street. It would be an expensive undertaking, but reduce the severity of these problems.

Supposing they become purely computer-controlled, the mechanisms are operated as separately as much as possible with minimal interdependence. So each of the 10 points in this diagram are controlled by independent nodes communicating over a network. The network links connect the nodes in the same manner as the tracks, so the node controlling points G is connected to nodes A, E, and I. A physical failure or a failure of the node at point G should trigger the propagation of a failure message to nearby nodes, which should still be up and functioning independently of node G. That way, other than a power failure or some other physical catastrophe (which would, of course, knock out everything in the area), a simple switch malfunction does not take out everything in the area. A failure at node G would still allow trains to continue through paths BDFHJ and CHJ. The switches at point D would not be down due to G being down since they are operated by independent nodes.

[Lawrence St]

Is there anyway to install switches at either end of 5th Av-53rd St?

[CenSin]

23 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Is there anyway to install switches at either end of 5th Av-53rd St?

For what purpose?

[BreeddekalbL]

Proposal of extending the train up 10th ave&amsterdam to 125th

Phase 1 Extended from 8th ave to future 41st-10th ave extension

Stops

14th

23rd

34th Street (connects with at hudson yards

41st&10th connects with at future 10th ave station

Phase 2 Extended from 10th ave station to 72nd street station

Stops at

50th

57th

66th (connect to train)

72nd (connect to )

phase 3 extended from 72nd to 125th and broadway station

Stops at

79th

86th

96th

106th

116th

Morningside Dr

125th Connect to with possible connection to a crosstown

[RR503]

8 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Proposal of extending the train up 10th ave&amsterdam to 125th

Phase 1 Extended from 8th ave to future 41st-10th ave extension

Stops

14th

23rd

34th Street (connects with at hudson yards

41st&10th connects with at future 10th ave station

Phase 2 Extended from 10th ave station to 72nd street station

Stops at

50th

57th

66th (connect to train)

72nd (connect to )

phase 3 extended from 72nd to 125th and broadway station

Stops at

79th

86th

96th

106th

116th

Morningside Dr

125th Connect to with possible connection to a crosstown

Why would you send to 125 when you could head over to Queens? that corridor above already has decent coverage in CPW/Broadway lines.

I would do the following north of 72nd/Bway

86/CPW  

86/3rd  

30th Ave/21st St

30th Ave/31st St 

30th Ave/Steinway St

Northern Boulevard/Broadway  

The above would be the minimum operating segment. From there, you could either head out Northern Boulevard towards Flushing or head south to the LIRR main to capture the PW branch. This would succeed at creating a route out of the heart of Queens that doesn't have to deal with LIC proper while also creating some modicum of a Manhattan crosstown. 

Edited May 27, 2018 by RR503

[BreeddekalbL]

On 5/21/2018 at 10:04 PM, Lil 57 said:

Also, the 95th St  terminal wasn't intended to be a terminal. 

 

Would Flatbush ave on the  and qualify?