Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[officiallyliam]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Sure, if you want to run this type of commuter rail service: 

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article/Inspector-general-Freight-delays-cost-Amtrak-millions-in-rsquo07--16462

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

If the demand is so high four-track the whole line. 

Putting a bus lane in on Kings Highway almost resulted in war; widening the Bay Ridge ROW to four tracks is almost certainly not feasible, nor do I think it's really necessary. Having freight and frequent passenger rail coexist on one corridor will require changing the way we operate freight service (so as to avoid the nightmare scenarios that Amtrak have faced), but our lack of willingness to be efficient with rail in much of the country doesn't mean it can't work here.

Instead of operating really long, slower trains a few times per day, we could run shorter, more frequent freight services between Bay Ridge and Fresh Pond that could easily slot in between scheduled passenger intervals. In parts of the line that can be four-tracked (Fresh Pond to the start of the Midwood cut), freight and passenger trains can be separated; we could do the same on parts of the line that have room for three tracks (which I believe the line from north of FP through Maspeth does). More freight can be operated overnight and during early mornings with either no or less-frequent passenger service.

A dual-mode (electric/diesel) freight locomotive could be useful; trains could run through from the greater region under diesel power and then switch to electric in the NYC area. The mass de-electrification of our rail network was a big mistake that should be reversed, and I'd hope that the success of electric freight in NYC could get the ball rolling on more electrification, at least in the Northeast before spreading around the country.

 

 

[Union Tpke]

13 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Putting a bus lane in on Kings Highway almost resulted in war; widening the Bay Ridge ROW to four tracks is almost certainly not feasible, nor do I think it's really necessary. Having freight and frequent passenger rail coexist on one corridor will require changing the way we operate freight service (so as to avoid the nightmare scenarios that Amtrak have faced), but our lack of willingness to be efficient with rail in much of the country doesn't mean it can't work here.

Instead of operating really long, slower trains a few times per day, we could run shorter, more frequent freight services between Bay Ridge and Fresh Pond that could easily slot in between scheduled passenger intervals. In parts of the line that can be four-tracked (Fresh Pond to the start of the Midwood cut), freight and passenger trains can be separated; we could do the same on parts of the line that have room for three tracks (which I believe the line from north of FP through Maspeth does). More freight can be operated overnight and during early mornings with either no or less-frequent passenger service.

A dual-mode (electric/diesel) freight locomotive could be useful; trains could run through from the greater region under diesel power and then switch to electric in the NYC area. The mass de-electrification of our rail network was a big mistake that should be reversed, and I'd hope that the success of electric freight in NYC could get the ball rolling on more electrification, at least in the Northeast before spreading around the country.

 

 

Agreed. What would you do in terms of yard space? Also, what would you do in terms of platforms and train lengths? I have seen some studies suggest short trains with low platforms with LRVs, and some wiht high-level, commuter rail like platforms.

Edited July 19, 2018 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

Putting a bus lane in on Kings Highway almost resulted in war; widening the Bay Ridge ROW to four tracks is almost certainly not feasible, nor do I think it's really necessary. Having freight and frequent passenger rail coexist on one corridor will require changing the way we operate freight service (so as to avoid the nightmare scenarios that Amtrak have faced), but our lack of willingness to be efficient with rail in much of the country doesn't mean it can't work here.

Instead of operating really long, slower trains a few times per day, we could run shorter, more frequent freight services between Bay Ridge and Fresh Pond that could easily slot in between scheduled passenger intervals. In parts of the line that can be four-tracked (Fresh Pond to the start of the Midwood cut), freight and passenger trains can be separated; we could do the same on parts of the line that have room for three tracks (which I believe the line from north of FP through Maspeth does). More freight can be operated overnight and during early mornings with either no or less-frequent passenger service.

A dual-mode (electric/diesel) freight locomotive could be useful; trains could run through from the greater region under diesel power and then switch to electric in the NYC area. The mass de-electrification of our rail network was a big mistake that should be reversed, and I'd hope that the success of electric freight in NYC could get the ball rolling on more electrification, at least in the Northeast before spreading around the country.

In general, comparing Chicago and Amtrak to anything else reeks of false equivalency. Chicago is a mess because you have 8 or 9 railroads completely averse to cooperation trying to sort a quarter or so of the nation’s traffic on infrastructure designed a century or so ago. Amtrak is crap because it doesn’t carry enough passengers to be politically relevant on a national scale. 

Here in NYC, we used to run 20 or 30 freights a day along with extremely frequent commuter and LD service on the NH main, the NYC main, the PRR main and the LIRR main. We did that all with no issue, because our freight facilites and passenger lines are to this day relatively segregated, and because there was never any question of train priority — passenger first. Freight was made to work around the peak hours, and that frankly functioned perfectly. Today, we still run freight up and down all those lines (granted, with reduced frequency) causing pretty much zero issue. In other words, as long as we gain dispatching power (something pretty easy to do given that the LIRR already owns the ROW) we can absolutely make freight and passenger cohabitate. The world created the off peak just for our pursuit of this sort of thing lol. 

I also object to the total adversity people are displaying towards investments in freight rail infrastructure. Rail is an inherently more efficient mode of transportation than to trucking. The only reason we have such a disproportionate amount of road freight in this city (and country) is because we throw hundreds of billions of dollars every year at that mode, thus subsidizing the hell out of rail’s competition. For the sake of the environment, our roads, and hell, capitalism, I think it’s time we began treating freight rail as something more than an industry that exists in a private sector vacuum. 

Finally, electrification. I actually don’t think that spending conventional catenary-and-pantograph is necessarily the way to go anymore. Many Class 1s (BNSF especially) are investigating the feasibility of battery powered trains, harnessing the relatively light and high power Lithium cells in development. I don’t know enough about battery tech to say definitively whether or not a battery powered engine would be able to output the HP necessary over the distance required for heavy haul freight service, but I think it’s worth considering that tech before shelling out the billions for catenary. 

Edited July 19, 2018 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

In general, comparing Chicago and Amtrak to anything else reeks of false equivalency. Chicago is a mess because you have 8 or 9 railroads completely averse to cooperation trying to sort a quarter or so of the nation’s traffic on infrastructure designed a century or so ago. Amtrak is crap because it doesn’t carry enough passengers to be politically relevant on a national scale. 

Here in NYC, we used to run 20 or 30 freights a day along with extremely frequent commuter and LD service on the NH main, the NYC main, the PRR main and the LIRR main. We did that all with no issue, because our freight facilites and passenger lines are to this day relatively segregated, and because there was never any question of train priority — passenger first. Freight was made to work around the peak hours, and that frankly functioned perfectly. Today, we still run freight up and down all those lines (granted, with reduced frequency) causing pretty much zero issue. In other words, as long as we gain dispatching power (something pretty easy to do given that the LIRR already owns the ROW) we can absolutely make freight and passenger cohabitate. The world created the off peak just for our pursuit of this sort of thing lol. 

I also object to the total adversity people are displaying towards investments in freight rail infrastructure. Rail is an inherently more efficient mode of transportation than to trucking. The only reason we have such a disproportionate amount of road freight in this city (and country) is because we throw hundreds of billions of dollars every year at that mode, thus subsidizing the hell out of rail’s competition. For the sake of the environment, our roads, and hell, capitalism, I think it’s time we began treating freight rail as something more than an industry that exists in a private sector vacuum. 

Finally, electrification. I actually don’t think that spending conventional catenary-and-pantograph is necessarily the way to go anymore. Many Class 1s (BNSF especially) are investigating the feasibility of battery powered trains, harnessing the relatively light and high power Lithium cells in development. I don’t know enough about battery tech to say definitively whether or not a battery powered engine would be able to output the HP necessary over the distance required for heavy haul freight service, but I think it’s worth considering that tech before shelling out the billions for catenary. 

I don't think it would cost billions for catenary. Having battery powered trains would reduce the need for a lot of electrical infrastructure and would reduce the weight of trains, reducing wear on tracks, increasing their lifespan. Electrocution deaths would be eliminated as well. This should be looked at. I didn't realize that railroads were actually investigating their feasibility. 

[bobtehpanda]

35 minutes ago, RR503 said:

In general, comparing Chicago and Amtrak to anything else reeks of false equivalency. Chicago is a mess because you have 8 or 9 railroads completely averse to cooperation trying to sort a quarter or so of the nation’s traffic on infrastructure designed a century or so ago. Amtrak is crap because it doesn’t carry enough passengers to be politically relevant on a national scale. 

Here in NYC, we used to run 20 or 30 freights a day along with extremely frequent commuter and LD service on the NH main, the NYC main, the PRR main and the LIRR main. We did that all with no issue, because our freight facilites and passenger lines are to this day relatively segregated, and because there was never any question of train priority — passenger first. Freight was made to work around the peak hours, and that frankly functioned perfectly. Today, we still run freight up and down all those lines (granted, with reduced frequency) causing pretty much zero issue. In other words, as long as we gain dispatching power (something pretty easy to do given that the LIRR already owns the ROW) we can absolutely make freight and passenger cohabitate. The world created the off peak just for our pursuit of this sort of thing lol. 

I also object to the total adversity people are displaying towards investments in freight rail infrastructure. Rail is an inherently more efficient mode of transportation than to trucking. The only reason we have such a disproportionate amount of road freight in this city (and country) is because we throw hundreds of billions of dollars every year at that mode, thus subsidizing the hell out of rail’s competition. For the sake of the environment, our roads, and hell, capitalism, I think it’s time we began treating freight rail as something more than an industry that exists in a private sector vacuum. 

Finally, electrification. I actually don’t think that spending conventional catenary-and-pantograph is necessarily the way to go anymore. Many Class 1s (BNSF especially) are investigating the feasibility of battery powered trains, harnessing the relatively light and high power Lithium cells in development. I don’t know enough about battery tech to say definitively whether or not a battery powered engine would be able to output the HP necessary over the distance required for heavy haul freight service, but I think it’s worth considering that tech before shelling out the billions for catenary. 

The main issue I have seen with battery power is that American freights are an order of magnitude heavier than the cars and buses that batteries have been retrofitted on; even the Europeans and Japanese with their lighter trains are having issues electrifying via battery. (It's also worth noting that the auto manufacturers have engineered the crap out of the cars and buses that are electric to make them more lightweight, which is a tall order for FRA-okay freight locomotives.)

The old railroads never ran an intensive off-peak service, though. RX would likely require ten minute headways throughout the day, five or even seven days a week, which is much too aggressive for American high-volume, low-speed traffic. You could operate off-peak fast freight, but then you end up with something like the lightly used European and Japanese freight networks, and most freight volume ends up moving by truck anyways.

Boosting freight capacity by rail, when there is no money for another Hudson/harbor crossing, when there is no physical space anywhere on the Island where you could reasonably and feasibly expand freight yards, is a fools' errand reminiscent of the tens of billions we have spent trying to make nuclear power a thing. 

(On a side note, IMO the most logical thing for freight would've actually been to build the Tappan Zee rail link, but that ship sailed quite a while ago.)

Edited July 19, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[RR503]

7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

 The old railroads never ran an intensive off-peak service, though. RX would likely require ten minute headways throughout the day, five or even seven days a week, which is much too aggressive for American high-volume, low-speed traffic. You could operate off-peak fast freight, but then you end up with something like the lightly used European and Japanese freight networks, and most freight volume ends up moving by truck anyways.

 Boosting freight capacity by rail, when there is no money for another Hudson/harbor crossing, when there is no physical space anywhere on the Island where you could reasonably and feasibly expand freight yards, is a fools' errand reminiscent of the tens of billions we have spent trying to make nuclear power a thing. 

This NH timetable from 1955 begs to differ. 

American rail freight can actually run at high speeds. Look no further than the NY&A, which is forced to run almost all their trains at 40 so as to not draw the ire of LIRR dispatch. Where US railroads lose time and speed is at sidings and in yards -- neither of which would be major factors on the RX. 

No one here is advocating for a Cross Harbor tunnel. We're just arguing against the destruction of a perfectly viable frieght line, one that is *gasp* growing. And look, you and CURES can harp all you want about how there's no space, how it's all downhill for freight from here on out, but the last 20 years have certainly contradicted those arguments. Not only have we created new yard space (Blissville, Maspeth, a few new tracks at FP, Pine Aire, BRT), but we've grown traffic sixfold along with it -- traffic that doesn't rely in any way on there being some heavy industrial base. And even if we can't find more yard space (which, again, I don't think is the case), there are operational remedies for everything. There is nothing stopping you from, for example, running a freight from LI (or LIC) to 65th St, putting it on a barge, and letting CSAO deal with sorting it at Greenville or Oak Island. That, in fact, is exactly what NH used to do -- and in under an hour, no less. 

[bobtehpanda]

42 minutes ago, RR503 said:

This NH timetable from 1955 begs to differ. 

American rail freight can actually run at high speeds. Look no further than the NY&A, which is forced to run almost all their trains at 40 so as to not draw the ire of LIRR dispatch. Where US railroads lose time and speed is at sidings and in yards -- neither of which would be major factors on the RX. 

No one here is advocating for a Cross Harbor tunnel. We're just arguing against the destruction of a perfectly viable frieght line, one that is *gasp* growing. And look, you and CURES can harp all you want about how there's no space, how it's all downhill for freight from here on out, but the last 20 years have certainly contradicted those arguments. Not only have we created new yard space (Blissville, Maspeth, a few new tracks at FP, Pine Aire, BRT), but we've grown traffic sixfold along with it -- traffic that doesn't rely in any way on there being some heavy industrial base. And even if we can't find more yard space (which, again, I don't think is the case), there are operational remedies for everything. There is nothing stopping you from, for example, running a freight from LI (or LIC) to 65th St, putting it on a barge, and letting CSAO deal with sorting it at Greenville or Oak Island. That, in fact, is exactly what NH used to do -- and in under an hour, no less. 

The NH mainline is also four tracks, with two/three tracks going to GCT and two via Hell Gate. Aren't we talking about RX having only two tracks?

[engineerboy6561]

How wide is the ROW, though? If there are only two tracks, but the ROW is 50+ feet wide, then you could rebuild it as four tracks for the length of the subway run, and now you're only taking land at station locations, and only around 20,000 square feet of it per station. You could have Tracks 2 and 4 carry freight and Tracks 1 and 3 carry subway trains, or vice versa. Build each station as an island platform (say 20' wide, and then you can just swing Track 3 out to go around the island platform and back in. Figure 20 extra feet of ROW width multiplied by 1000 feet (200 feet on each end for the track to swing out the required 20', then 600' for the platform) and that's pretty reasonable. It only gets hard if the ROW itself dips below 50' in width or so.

Edited July 19, 2018 by engineerboy6561

[RR503]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The NH mainline is also four tracks, with two/three tracks going to GCT and two via Hell Gate. Aren't we talking about RX having only two tracks?

Sure, but we (even with better float service) aren't talking about anything on the order of what NH ran -- *maybe* 5-7 freight trains per day, if that. We also aren't talking about express passenger service. 

Point being, overnight and during the midday, I can't see there not being room for a well-powered freight to come through. The area of the line where 4 tracks never existed is on the short side (Brighton Line to New Utrecht Avenue), and there's space (in the current cut) to put a holding track at what was Parkville Jct. Given that our subway can find space for work trains and midday transfer moves, and that the LIRR can find space for NY&A, I again just don't understand the aversion here. 

[GojiMet86]

At the bare-minimum-Phase-1 level, the Triboro RX should be running from Jackson Heights (on the abandoned upper level) to 62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue or 8th Avenue. There is space on most of the ROW for 4 tracks, so if you want to run a seperate subway (and not a mixed passenger/freight service), there is space. The current portion north of Fresh Pond Yard (next to the  Metropolitan Avenue) has a cementary on the right, and the part north of Metropolitan Avenue has cementaries on both sides. There seems to be enough space from 65th Street for a seperate subway line to descend into a tunnel and run beneath the ROW to the LIRR Main Line, under Jacobus Street and 78th Street into Upper Roosevelt.

The only yard space that comes up immediately to my mind is the Bay Ridge-65th Street yard. The float yard part has about 9 tracks (parallel to 65th Street), and there are two team tracks north of it. Then there is a connection to the South Brooklyn Railway or whatever it is now. If you measure through Google Earth, the float yard is 150 feet from Track 1 to Track 9 (each track occupying about 13 to17 feet, including empty space padding). The whole yard is about 430 feet from Ramp to Track 9.

BUT if you look on Google Earth, you will see that there is space available. If you were to move the two team and two pad tracks right next to each other and the float yard, the whole yard becomes about 250 feet, north to south. There is a parking lot that is north of the ramp but south of 63rd Street. Take that away, and there is space for a yard that measures 450-500 feet, north to south.

A section in Jamaica Yard has 32 tracks, of lengths varying from 800 feet to 1100 feet, across 460 feet, which includes some walkways (And measured through Google Earth). Using that as a reference, a Bay Ridge Yard that is 400 feet across can have some 20-25 tracks that can be as long as 1100 feet, and still have room for yard leads.

The yard would have to be close to the harbor. Closest NYC analogy that comes to my mind is 207th Street. In this day and age, with rising water levels, and frequent strong hurricanes, they would have to make sure the yard is resistant.

Or they could just try something very new and build an underground yard underneath the float yard.

 

These are historical track maps, which should be in order. Most of the line from Fresh Pond to Bay Ridge is 4 tracks.  The Nostrand Avenue map shows space for 4 tracks below Brooklyn College, two which seemed to have been removed. After (and south) of Brooklyn College, the line seems to be 2 tracks until it New Utrecht where it meets the and widens to 4 tracks.

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/bayridge/bayridge.htm

 

 

Quote

 

 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

At the bare-minimum-Phase-1 level, the Triboro RX should be running from Jackson Heights (on the abandoned upper level) to 62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue or 8th Avenue. There is space on most of the ROW for 4 tracks, so if you want to run a seperate subway (and not a mixed passenger/freight service), there is space. The current portion north of Fresh Pond Yard (next to the  Metropolitan Avenue) has a cementary on the right, and the part north of Metropolitan Avenue has cementaries on both sides. There seems to be enough space from 65th Street for a seperate subway line to descend into a tunnel and run beneath the ROW to the LIRR Main Line, under Jacobus Street and 78th Street into Upper Roosevelt.

 

 

How would the Triboro Rx be extended from the Upper Level to the Bronx and through Astoria? You will have to destroy all of the stores there, and you might have to completely rebuild the escalator transfer at the west end of station. I don't know how the transfer to the other lines would work and I don't know where you would put the portal. I wish it were possible though.

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Sure, but we (even with better float service) aren't talking about anything on the order of what NH ran -- *maybe* 5-7 freight trains per day, if that. We also aren't talking about express passenger service. 

Point being, overnight and during the midday, I can't see there not being room for a well-powered freight to come through. The area of the line where 4 tracks never existed is on the short side (Brighton Line to New Utrecht Avenue), and there's space (in the current cut) to put a holding track at what was Parkville Jct. Given that our subway can find space for work trains and midday transfer moves, and that the LIRR can find space for NY&A, I again just don't understand the aversion here. 

With adequate and precise scheduling there shouldn't be an issue.

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

How would the Triboro Rx be extended from the Upper Level to the Bronx and through Astoria? You will have to destroy all of the stores there, and you might have to completely rebuild the escalator transfer at the west end of station. I don't know how the transfer to the other lines would work and I don't know where you would put the portal. I wish it were possible though.

There's a pair of freight tracks running alongside the BQE right near Roosevelt. If you run the line along Roosevelt and rip up the lot bounded by 72nd, Broadway, Roosevelt, and the freight tracks you might be able to put a portal there and build a new elevated structure over the freight tracks that follows both the freight tracks and the New Haven Line. You'd wind up double-decking the Hell Gate Bridge. If you pull the new structure a few feet to the west of the New Haven Line while over Randall's Island you could buy out the FedEx shipping center, pop a portal where the paper building is now just south of 132 St, then run it either over to 149 St/3Av to terminate it. If you want to continue it up to Co-Op, then swing it out a few feet west, plop a Randall's Island station there, then send it back over the New Haven Line the rest of the way out.

Edited July 20, 2018 by engineerboy6561

[officiallyliam]

15 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

At the bare-minimum-Phase-1 level, the Triboro RX should be running from Jackson Heights (on the abandoned upper level) to 62nd Street-New Utrecht Avenue or 8th Avenue. There is space on most of the ROW for 4 tracks, so if you want to run a seperate subway (and not a mixed passenger/freight service), there is space. The current portion north of Fresh Pond Yard (next to the  Metropolitan Avenue) has a cementary on the right, and the part north of Metropolitan Avenue has cementaries on both sides. There seems to be enough space from 65th Street for a seperate subway line to descend into a tunnel and run beneath the ROW to the LIRR Main Line, under Jacobus Street and 78th Street into Upper Roosevelt.

11 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

There's a pair of freight tracks running alongside the BQE right near Roosevelt. If you run the line along Roosevelt and rip up the lot bounded by 72nd, Broadway, Roosevelt, and the freight tracks you might be able to put a portal there and build a new elevated structure over the freight tracks that follows both the freight tracks and the New Haven Line. You'd wind up double-decking the Hell Gate Bridge.

13 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

How would the Triboro Rx be extended from the Upper Level to the Bronx and through Astoria?

I'd love to be able to use upper Roosevelt, but any circumferential on the NYCR right-of-way should continue beyond Jackson Heights, and using upper Roosevelt makes this impossible. Even if we were able to send the new tracks through the IND mezzanine (which is where they end), I doubt there's enough room between the surface and the top of the QBL tunnel to fit a new tunnel for this rail line. The unfortunate part is that Jackson Heights is the worst "missed connection" between the rail ROW and subway lines, but it isn't an impossible one. The distance from where the ROW hits Roosevelt to the 74th Street station is two blocks (680'). This is far from ideal, but an underground passage with high-speed moving walkways should connect the two stations. We could also do something a little unorthodox: build the connection facing the other way to 69th Street, which is a shorter walk (500') and a much less crowded station.

12 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

If you pull the new structure a few feet to the west of the New Haven Line while over Randall's Island you could buy out the FedEx shipping center, pop a portal where the paper building is now just south of 132 St, then run it either over to 149 St/3Av to terminate it. If you want to continue it up to Co-Op, then swing it out a few feet west, plop a Randall's Island station there, then send it back over the New Haven Line the rest of the way out. 

Now, the Bronx routing: a Randall's Island station might be nice, but I don't think that it would justify its expense. Once it gets to the Bronx, the line should absolutely serve the Hub in the South Bronx rather than turn north to Co-Op City. You could probably (at least partially) reuse the old Port Morris Branch tunnel under St. Mary's Park; I'd include a station at Southern Blvd to connect with the , then tunnel under 149th to intersect the . That's certainly the extent of the line that I'd build immediately, but in an ultimate pipe-dream world I'd continue the line up to Yankee Stadium (via Concourse and 161st), then to 168th Street in Washington Heights (following the Hudson line). It's not a Triboro anymore, but it does complete a half-circle around the city and adds a connection between upper Manhattan and the South Bronx.
 

 

 

[Union Tpke]

59 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I'd love to be able to use upper Roosevelt, but any circumferential on the NYCR right-of-way should continue beyond Jackson Heights, and using upper Roosevelt makes this impossible. Even if we were able to send the new tracks through the IND mezzanine (which is where they end), I doubt there's enough room between the surface and the top of the QBL tunnel to fit a new tunnel for this rail line. The unfortunate part is that Jackson Heights is the worst "missed connection" between the rail ROW and subway lines, but it isn't an impossible one. The distance from where the ROW hits Roosevelt to the 74th Street station is two blocks (680'). This is far from ideal, but an underground passage with high-speed moving walkways should connect the two stations. We could also do something a little unorthodox: build the connection facing the other way to 69th Street, which is a shorter walk (500') and a much less crowded station.

 

See Pages 17 and 18.

http://www.irum.org/199406_CBT_BQ_RailLink_report.pdf

Edited July 20, 2018 by Union Tpke

[officiallyliam]

43 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

See Pages 17 and 18.

http://www.irum.org/199406_CBT_BQ_RailLink_report.pdf

I personally don't have an issue with using (FRA-compliant) LRVs to take advantage of street-running in Jackson Heights, and maybe in the South Bronx as well to avoid tunneling, as long as it isn't going to sacrifice speed and reliability. Jackson Heights is a major destination (and would be one of the busier stops on a Triboro line) but street-running through there is no picnic. For as much as this line should attempt to serve major centers like Jackson Heights as best as possible, it should also be a quick way around the city, without too many local detours.

[Union Tpke]

Just now, officiallyliam said:

I personally don't have an issue with using (FRA-compliant) LRVs to take advantage of street-running in Jackson Heights, and maybe in the South Bronx as well to avoid tunneling, as long as it isn't going to sacrifice speed and reliability. Jackson Heights is a major destination (and would be one of the busier stops on a Triboro line) but street-running through there is no picnic. For as much as this line should attempt to serve major centers like Jackson Heights as best as possible, it should also be a quick way around the city, without too many local detours.

LRVs would allow the line to go over the Verrazano.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I personally don't have an issue with using (FRA-compliant) LRVs to take advantage of street-running in Jackson Heights, and maybe in the South Bronx as well to avoid tunneling, as long as it isn't going to sacrifice speed and reliability. Jackson Heights is a major destination (and would be one of the busier stops on a Triboro line) but street-running through there is no picnic. For as much as this line should attempt to serve major centers like Jackson Heights as best as possible, it should also be a quick way around the city, without too many local detours.

A few short tunnels really shouldn’t be a bar to doing a Triboro Rx with LRVs. Though it might not be necessary to do one to connect to the  at Flatbush Avenue, but underground passageways would be needed. Definitely should go underground in Jackson Heights to get as close to the  station complex as possible.

[Around the Horn]

10 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

LRVs would allow the line to go over the Verrazano.

What? How are you getting from the Bay Ridge Branch to the Verrazano? They're 30 blocks apart and facing in two different directions...

[bobtehpanda]

On 7/20/2018 at 8:19 AM, officiallyliam said:

I'd love to be able to use upper Roosevelt, but any circumferential on the NYCR right-of-way should continue beyond Jackson Heights.

I don't actually know how true this is. The RX proposals past Jackson Heights have kind of been lacking; a connection to the Bronx would miss nearly all the jobs centers in Queens and require backtracking for most of them. On top of that, Astoria was already rejected as infeasible by the Penn Station Access study.

[Union Tpke]

20 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

What? How are you getting from the Bay Ridge Branch to the Verrazano? They're 30 blocks apart and facing in two different directions...

Either via the Gowanus or the Belt.

[officiallyliam]

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't actually know how true this is. The RX proposals past Jackson Heights have kind of been lacking; a connection to the Bronx would miss nearly all the jobs centers in Queens and require backtracking for most of them. On top of that, Astoria was already rejected as infeasible by the Penn Station Access study.

Which job centers are we talking about? Jackson Heights is directly on Triboro, of course. LIC would be backtracking, yes, but from the South Bronx the Triboro to a Queens Blvd express would probably be just as fast or faster than the Lex to the . South Bronx to Flushing would be faster via a Triboro to journey, and even faster if there were a connection between Triboro and the LIRR; Jamaica would also be easier to access from the Bronx via Triboro.

RE: Astoria - From a total non-engineer's perspective, Astoria looks undeniably challenging, but not entirely impossible. One advantage of LRT is that it would require shorter and lighter platforms, which would be easier to build than big railroad platforms considering the limitations of building around the viaduct. And it's a pretty valuable connection to have IMO; Astoria is pretty hard to access from areas of Queens that aren't LIC.

42 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Either via the Gowanus or the Belt. 

The best way I see is to tunnel under 7th Avenue to the Gowanus Expressway, then elevated or surface to the lower level of the bridge. That won't lead to St. George without being quite circuitous, but you could continue the line across the SI expressway (or Victory Blvd) out to the West Shore, or possibly into Elizabeth. LRT opens up a lot of possibilities for street-ruuning the line through areas where tunnels or new-build ROWs wouldn't be warranted; the only concern is that LRT does sacrifice capacity compared to a railroad line, and without the will to seriously change street design, my concern is that LRTs street-running through dense areas could totally cripple reliability.

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by officiallyliam

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

Which job centers are we talking about? Jackson Heights is directly on Triboro, of course. LIC would be backtracking, yes, but from the South Bronx the Triboro to a Queens Blvd express would probably be just as fast or faster than the Lex to the . South Bronx to Flushing would be faster via a Triboro to journey, and even faster if there were a connection between Triboro and the LIRR; Jamaica would also be easier to access from the Bronx via Triboro.

RE: Astoria - From a total non-engineer's perspective, Astoria looks undeniably challenging, but not entirely impossible. One advantage of LRT is that it would require shorter and lighter platforms, which would be easier to build than big railroad platforms considering the limitations of building around the viaduct. And it's a pretty valuable connection to have IMO; Astoria is pretty hard to access from areas of Queens that aren't LIC.

LaGuardia, the largest jobs hub in Western Queens, is backtracking. Flushing is backtracking vs. Q44. LIC is backtracking. The only other jobs areas/retail hubs close-ish to RX are Jackson Heights and Rego Park, and that's not a lot.

LRT doesn't really have lighter platform requirements; shorter, but not lighter. In any case IIRC the entire Hell Gate line is at a pretty consistent uphill grade, and there's also the fact that by the time you get to Astoria the Hell Gate is very high in the sky, possibly higher than any other platform in the city; safe egress to and from platforms would be very challenging.

[officiallyliam]

9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

LaGuardia, the largest jobs hub in Western Queens, is backtracking. Flushing is backtracking vs. Q44. LIC is backtracking. The only other jobs areas/retail hubs close-ish to RX are Jackson Heights and Rego Park, and that's not a lot.

LRT doesn't really have lighter platform requirements; shorter, but not lighter. In any case IIRC the entire Hell Gate line is at a pretty consistent uphill grade, and there's also the fact that by the time you get to Astoria the Hell Gate is very high in the sky, possibly higher than any other platform in the city; safe egress to and from platforms would be very challenging.

149th to Astoria Blvd on Triboro, followed by M60 to LGA, isn't backtracking; nor is 149th to Flushing by transferring to the . The Q44 goes to West Farms, not the Hub, so it's two different corridors we're talking about.

The problem with Astoria is street access, I agree. Hell Gate platforms to platform is doable; from Hell Gate to the street directly is definitely challenging.

[R68OnBroadway]

Was thinking about a few short-term projects (could be completed in 5-10 years) that have not been brought up by the MTA but have merit. Any thoughts?

1. A one-stop extension of the  to Co-Op City. The center platform at PBP could be removed and the station renovated to allow for a third track. The new line would run just east of the 95 and the new stop at Co-Op city would be located at Baychester/Bartow, consist of 2 tracks and an island platform, and would be called Co-Op City South. The station would also have a transfer to the  train.

2. A  train extension to Co-Op City via 205th St, Burke Av, Gun Hill Rd, and Bartow Av. Stops would be located at White Plains Road  , Laconia Av-Boston Rd, Gun Hill Rd , Co-Op City South ( transfer), and Co-Op City North (located at the Dreiser Av loop/Co-Op City Blvd). The line could be further extended to Eastchester-Dyre Av via Steenwick/Dyre Av.

3. Completion of Triboro RX from 8th Avenue (  ) to Jackson Heights. Stops at New Utrecht, 17th-18th Av, McDonald Av (passageway to 18th Av or Avenue I  ), Coney Island Av-E 14th Street (passageway to Avenue H  ) , Nostrand-Flatbush Av (  transfer), Utica Av-Kings Highway, Remsen Av, New Lots Av  , Livonia Av (passageway between  and  would be built), Broadway Junction (transfer to all the lines there and LIRR), Wilson Av, Cypress Av, Myrtle Av, Metropolitan Av, Eliot Av, Grand Av, Queens Blvd, and Jackson Heights. At both ends of the line sidings would be built where possible to allow for trains to turn around out of the way of freight trains, which would be scheduled to run either at night or during lulls in the schedule. As for a yard, you could maybe seize some land in Brownsville or Canarsie near those train yards to expand them for RX service, or you could just use modified M9s and base them out of LIRR depots.

4. An extension of the Nostrand Av line to Avenue X with stops at Avenue J, Kings Highway, Avenue R, Avenue U, and Avenue X. Avenue X would have tail tracks extending to Avenue Z. This would also involve deinterling Rogers (  stays same,  replaces  on Nostrand,  to New Lots via local past Franklin, and  via express to Utica Av.) As for the issue of yard access, with  gone from New Lots, the  will be moved there and the  will be moved to Concourse. To give a more direct route to Concourse, the  's tracks will be extended past 148th to 152nd/St Nicholas Pl to connect to the , allowing for an easy connection as well as a new IRT-BMT/IND link.

Edited July 22, 2018 by R68OnBroadway