JeremiahC99 Posted July 30, 2018 Share #6926 Posted July 30, 2018 14 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said: Responses in red. How are you going to integrate the existing elevated with a new AirTrain-style elevated structure without disturbing homes, and will they like an AirTrain-style elevated structure in front of their homes. Also, I think rebuilding the junction would be the most beneficial compared to deinterlining because under deinterlining, people would have to transfer to reach their destination. In this case, Nostrand riders would lose their direct access to East Side destinations like Grand Central, where they can take Metro-North train. And also, why don’t you like short term disruptions for long term benefits. That’s the same strategy the Fast Forward Plan is built on? Also, you can directky quote my posts and list your responses outside the quote box. You do not need to write your responses inside the quote box. Just saying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitfan111 Posted July 30, 2018 Share #6927 Posted July 30, 2018 19 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said: Responses in red. Easy for you to say, you probably don't use the Eastern Parkway/Nostrand Ave lines.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 30, 2018 Share #6928 Posted July 30, 2018 On 7/28/2018 at 5:44 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said: For those who are speculating about CTBC related fleet swap read the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/nyregion/nyc-subway-byford-proposal.html In the event that the N, Q, W loses all r160's, some would go to Jamaica, some would go to Pitkin. Also, the 2 may lose their r142's in exchange of the r62s from the 6 and all r142's may need to be modified to be CTBC ready. Lets see what happens. Again, nothing has been confirmed by the MTA in regards to CTBC fleet swap. Right now the priority is the r179's and Canarsie. After reading yet another CBTC-related tangent in the R179 thread (which has enough fireworks of its own), it occurred to me that de-interlining Rogers may help justify a switch in equipment between the and lines. By de-interlining Rogers, you would have the and sharing Flatbush instead of the and . My biggest objection to putting R62As on the has always been the need to swap trains with the in a pinch, which goes back to the Redbird days (probably even before). But if Transit plans to fast-track CBTC on Lexington and doesn’t want to retrofit the older R62As on the (which is why those trains are no longer on the ), it becomes easier to justify keeping the and completely separate throughout Brooklyn. On 7/27/2018 at 4:46 PM, R68OnBroadway said: It would be better to deinterline Rogers ( via Nostrand, via EPW) and build/extend lines down Nostrand and Utica. CBTC on Lex could be the key to doing that. On 7/29/2018 at 2:23 PM, CenSin said: Think a lower level could be possible? There may or may not be room to build a ramp down to a lower level, and then there is the question of ducking under the Bay Ridge branch cutting across Nostrand Avenue perpendicularly south of the station. It might be worth considering. Would an extension either the or (or both) further south from the lower level work too? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6929 Posted July 31, 2018 4 hours ago, transitfan111 said: Easy for you to say, you probably don't use the Eastern Parkway/Nostrand Ave lines.... Firstly, de-interlining the junction is not just for the sake of not spending money to rebuild it, but because it will benefit many more riders than the ones who would "suffer" (which would be few and only to a small degree). De-interlining the junction does the following: -Massive capacity increase on the IRT Brooklyn lines. -Limits the affects of delays on one line cascading to another. -Speeds up CBTC on the Lex lines as they will be 100% NTT if this plan is in place, as it will allow the and to swap fleets. Equipment will also be shared by the two trunk lines, which helps separate them to avoid conflict and cascading problems. Dwell times would also be reduced as the NTTs have lower dwell times than the 62As. -Lowers crowding, and transferring would not be the PITA it is now as any two trains would be able to arrive simultaneously and all would arrive within short times of each other, which will have people wait no more than a few minutes if they are transferring. -As for the claim about how most people would suffer from this change due to more need for Lexington service, even if everyone wanted Lexington, more people use the New Lots/ east EPW branch than use the Nostrand branch. -Rebuilding the junction will cause plenty of delays, cost a crap ton of $, and would take forever given how awful we are in managing projects. It will also not solve the reversing branching problem. The problem with your constant philosophy that everything must stay the same because group X will complain is exactly why the MTA and city are failing now, whether it be the refusal to build a necessary airport link because two blocks of NAMBYs would complain, not charging people for clogging up our streets who only care about their sheltered suburban areas, the inability to cap a company that is essentially just a worse version of a taxi service, or to lower our outrageous construction costs just because of so-called New York exceptionalism. Sometimes people need to deal with it and wait and see what happens, and if it does not benefit them, they can adapt as the majority of people affected will still be benefited. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6930 Posted July 31, 2018 Although not directly mentioned in the Brooklyn IRT conversation how would an IRT Utica line fit in? or ? Also, what happens to Livonia yard under this scenario? The NTT yards are all located in the Bronx at the moment. With the space constraints and the costs I can't see making Livonia compatible with the NTT fleets. Any ideas on what's to become of Livonia and Lenox yards ? Does the proposal mean the closure of the Lenox line north of 142nd St junction and the end of the line name? Hypothetically speaking everything coming from Flatbush would be a if what I'm interpreting is true. Just my thoughts. Carry on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6931 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said: Also, what happens to Livonia yard under this scenario? The NTT yards are all located in the Bronx at the moment. With the space constraints and the costs I can't see making Livonia compatible with the NTT fleets Just asking but with all cars being NTT's within the next 10-15 years if they don't make the upgrades wouldn't the yards become obsolete? That's cost incurred at some point anyways correct? Sooner than later it would seem. Edited July 31, 2018 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitfan111 Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6932 Posted July 31, 2018 Am I the only one who is against de-interlining the 2/3/4/5 lines? I surely can't be the only one here lmao I feel like the Roger's Junction isn't the biggest capacity issue for those lines... Yes I do prefer to have it removed, but I think rebuilding the junction is our only option, we can't just keep trying to hide from it. Franklin Avenue will be the next Grand Central if we de-interline. Anyways, If we do de-interline, can we just get rid of the 3 symbol? It will be super confusing, to tourists especially 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6933 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, transitfan111 said: Am I the only one who is against de-interlining the 2/3/4/5 lines? I surely can't be the only one here lmao I feel like the Roger's Junction isn't the biggest capacity issue for those lines... Yes I do prefer to have it removed, but I think rebuilding the junction is our only option, we can't just keep trying to hide from it. Franklin Avenue will be the next Grand Central if we de-interline. Anyways, If we do de-interline, can we just get rid of the 3 symbol? It will be super confusing, to tourists especially I don't think there are many options honestly in the short term de-interlining is the only way to make the most of what you currently have. As a daily rider of this line id have to disagree Rogers is a huge capacity issue for these lines. Let a train leave Frankin southbound at the same time as a local. Ripple effect. And man what about when you just bearly make that train at Utica your hoping you can beat that into Rogers ? It's a downer when that train starts to coast and slow passing Kingston you know you just added about 10 extra mins onto your ride. The crosses your path again and You're trailing that baby all the way to Grand Central. While yes ultimately rebuilding is the best bet you have to keep service going while you're figuring out the problem and steps. What's the saying when you don't have an answer next best thing is to manage the problem. Optimizing and de-interlacing is a step in that direction and trying manage it somewhat. Edited July 31, 2018 by RailRunRob 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6934 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, RailRunRob said: Just asking but with all cars being NTT's within the next 10-15 years if they don't make the upgrades wouldn't the yards become obsolete? That's cost incurred at some point anyways correct? Sooner than later it would seem. You're on the right track about my question but I'm thinking about fleet requirements and the size of Livonia yard. Most of the proposals seem to ignore my infrastructure thoughts and storage and maintenance facilities remain as is ? trains maintained at 239 yard while stored at Lenox? Expand Livonia yard somehow ? Maybe I'm missing something here. BTW in these deinterlining scenarios are folks advocating severing the connection between the Nostrand Avenue line and the Utica/ New Lots portion ? Just asking. Edited July 31, 2018 by Trainmaster5 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6935 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said: You're on the right track about my question but I'm thinking about fleet requirements and the size of Livonia yard. Most of the proposals seem to ignore my infrastructure thoughts and storage and maintenance facilities remain as is ? trains maintained at 239 yard while stored at Lenox? Expand Livonia yard somehow ? Maybe I'm missing something here. BTW in these deinterlining scenarios are folks advocating severing the connection between the Nostrand Avenue line and the Utica/ New Lots portion ? Just asking. I wouldn't take any de-interlining proposal that involved actually severing track very seriously. Honestly, for a to Utica, the most logical place for a yard IMO is either the Marine Park Golf Course, or the auto mall, parkland, and Toys R Us on the other side. Toys R Us just went out of business, so they could use the money. Parts of Floyd Bennett Field are little more than parking lots, I'm sure the parks wouldn't mind if they just took an unused parking lot. The only problem is that Floyd Bennett is much further down Flatbush. Edited July 31, 2018 by bobtehpanda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6936 Posted July 31, 2018 5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said: You're on the right track about my question but I'm thinking about fleet requirements and the size of Livonia yard. Most of the proposals seem to ignore my infrastructure thoughts and storage and maintenance facilities remain as is ? trains maintained at 239 yard while stored at Lenox? Expand Livonia yard somehow ? Maybe I'm missing something here. BTW in these deinterlining scenarios are folks advocating severing the connection between the Nostrand Avenue line and the Utica/ New Lots portion ? Just asking. I'd just expand New Lots to accommodate the and then move the to 239th or Concourse (the latter would be done by linking the past Lenox to the /.) As for service patterns on the line, it would look like this: unchanged, future extension down Nostrand to Av U or X. (new line would be underground) rerouted via Nostrand past Franklin, will be extended in the future as well. Woodlawn to New Lots via express west of Franklin and local east of Franklin. Dyre to Utica Av, via express all along EPW. Future extension down Utica to Kings Plaza. Line underground north of Kings Hwy, elevated south of Kings Highway to save $ and due to the water table, but the elevated shouldn't be a problem since most of the buildings on Utica are not residential. A new yard could be built somewhere near FBF to house the if needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6937 Posted July 31, 2018 In the short turn, running some more (5)s to Utica might work, with more (2)s to Flatbush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6938 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said: You're on the right track about my question but I'm thinking about fleet requirements and the size of Livonia yard. Most of the proposals seem to ignore my infrastructure thoughts and storage and maintenance facilities remain as is ? trains maintained at 239 yard while stored at Lenox? Expand Livonia yard somehow ? Maybe I'm missing something here. BTW in these deinterlining scenarios are folks advocating severing the connection between the Nostrand Avenue line and the Utica/ New Lots portion ? Just asking. Gotcha. I guess thinking about it objectively id have to ask myself what the current peak headway is for the ? Second how many trains would be needed to fill in for this proposed 4-mile extension to keep service frequency. Based on this number could yards be upgraded to accommodate this extra service an extra track or two? How about spilt over a few yards? What about an underground yard? 137th, 174 th, tail tracks? Could these scenarios support the extra trains? Maintenance if we're talking about 4-6 extra trains spill over could 239th handle a few extra trains a month? What about 239, Unionport and Jerome? Could they each maintenance two extra trains a month? Not saying I have the answer fully. But the equation is there just have to input the right information and numbers. What was the MTA's plan in the 1960's with the extension? They had to have worked something out or at least considered the exact same questions we're asking now is there a larger fleet nowadays?. I can't see them severing any connections just a switch or two added. It's more on the operations side. Edited July 31, 2018 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6939 Posted July 31, 2018 https://westendexp.wixsite.com/mysite-1/home/deinterlining-the-nyc-subway-rogers-junction Over here is my proposal for deinterlining Rogers. It's very similar to most plans however my plan shows the switching to local east of Franklin instead of the and the doing skip-stop on Nostrand. It also features a potential extension of the Nostrand Av line to Voorhies and also an extension of the to Spring Creek. The IRT in the Bronx doesn't need to be deinterlined because 149 St will become an overcrowding nightmare and the S-curve the uses can't compare to Cypress Hills despite its sharp angle. It would also require shutting 145 St and 148 St. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6940 Posted July 31, 2018 44 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said: The IRT in the Bronx doesn't need to be deinterlined because 149 St will become an overcrowding nightmare and the S-curve the uses can't compare to Cypress Hills despite its sharp angle. It would also require shutting 145 St and 148 St. Is there an issue on the Bronx side? Are you referring to 142nd street Junction? It's a grade crossing but it should see less traffic correct? Rogers is a bit busier and complex with dual levels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6941 Posted July 31, 2018 4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said: https://westendexp.wixsite.com/mysite-1/home/deinterlining-the-nyc-subway-rogers-junction Over here is my proposal for deinterlining Rogers. It's very similar to most plans however my plan shows the switching to local east of Franklin instead of the and the doing skip-stop on Nostrand. It also features a potential extension of the Nostrand Av line to Voorhies and also an extension of the to Spring Creek. The IRT in the Bronx doesn't need to be deinterlined because 149 St will become an overcrowding nightmare and the S-curve the uses can't compare to Cypress Hills despite its sharp angle. It would also require shutting 145 St and 148 St. The article is good in explaining the problem, but you need to describe the benefits more in detail. For example you can say: De-interlining the junction allows for a 25% increase on both lines. The and will be able to swap equipment, allowing for faster CBTC addition to Lex. (Explain that the and share equipment and why they both must have NTTs, then explain how deinterlining will allow them to instead share equipment with their other express line, which will allow for 62As to the and 142s to the .) Transferring at Franklin would not be like the PITA it is today as with the bottleneck removed, trains can run smoothly, allowing for more connections, and trains will also run very frequent, which means that you would only wait a few minutes at most if you just missed you train. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitfan111 Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6942 Posted July 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said: The article is good in explaining the problem, but you need to describe the benefits more in detail. For example you can say: De-interlining the junction allows for a 25% increase on both lines. The and will be able to swap equipment, allowing for faster CBTC addition to Lex. (Explain that the and share equipment and why they both must have NTTs, then explain how deinterlining will allow them to instead share equipment with their other express line, which will allow for 62As to the and 142s to the .) Transferring at Franklin would not be like the PITA it is today as with the bottleneck removed, trains can run smoothly, allowing for more connections, and trains will also run very frequent, which means that you would only wait a few minutes at most if you just missed you train. If it was de-interlined, would the MTA run more trains? Is it even possible with the current signal system? The Lexington line is already packed, especially when you have 5 trains short turning at Bowling Green. And 2/3 service cannot increase without reconstruction of the Flatbush terminal. Perhaps they can extend all 5 trains to Brooklyn? But that seems unlikely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted July 31, 2018 Share #6943 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 43 minutes ago, transitfan111 said: If it was de-interlined, would the MTA run more trains? Is it even possible with the current signal system? The Lexington line is already packed, especially when you have 5 trains short turning at Bowling Green. And 2/3 service cannot increase without reconstruction of the Flatbush terminal. Perhaps they can extend all 5 trains to Brooklyn? But that seems unlikely. CBTC is on a fast track it seems and with CBTC your running trains closer together, a few Hundred feet here and there closed in train spacing, and in essence, you could fit a few more trains in TPH within the current confines with Flatbush as is. De-interlining is also about getting delays under control as I said before it's about optimizing the current outputs and mitigating the ripple effects of Rogers junction. A few extra trains is the icing on the cake so to speak. Edited July 31, 2018 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6944 Posted August 1, 2018 2 hours ago, transitfan111 said: If it was de-interlined, would the MTA run more trains? Is it even possible with the current signal system? The Lexington line is already packed, especially when you have 5 trains short turning at Bowling Green. And 2/3 service cannot increase without reconstruction of the Flatbush terminal. Perhaps they can extend all 5 trains to Brooklyn? But that seems unlikely. It's definitely possible. As you begin to allude to, those runs to BG exist solely because the Rogers/Flatbush matrix is so inefficient. I also think it's worth noting that while capacity restrictions at Flatbush may not allow you to add more runs, the inherent reliability gain in deinterlining will allow the MTA to actually run scheduled service. On any given weekday, only 8 out of 9 , 5 out of 6 , 9 out of 10 and 11 out of 12 trains actually run. That may not sound like much, but it aggregates to a ~12% capacity cut on the Lex and a 10% cut on 7th express -- nothing to laugh at, in my opinion. Even if we just recover that capacity and only add marginal (3-5 tph) service on these lines, we are affecting a massive service increase (along with the travel time/predictability gains others have discussed, of course). I also think that if we're spending the 300 mil to do Rogers, we could easily ask for the additional funds to add relay tracks at FABC. 7 or 8 hundred feet of tunnel will be expensive, sure, but I doubt more than 500 million. The issue is, of course, the interface with the Bay Ridge Branch, but even that could be converted to an opportunity -- to lift an idea from Vanshnookenraggen, some minimal train storage space could be provided in the ROW, as it is 4 tracks wide in the area. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6945 Posted August 1, 2018 20 hours ago, Coney Island Av said: https://westendexp.wixsite.com/mysite-1/home/deinterlining-the-nyc-subway-rogers-junction Over here is my proposal for deinterlining Rogers. It's very similar to most plans however my plan shows the switching to local east of Franklin instead of the and the doing skip-stop on Nostrand. It also features a potential extension of the Nostrand Av line to Voorhies and also an extension of the to Spring Creek. The IRT in the Bronx doesn't need to be deinterlined because 149 St will become an overcrowding nightmare and the S-curve the uses can't compare to Cypress Hills despite its sharp angle. It would also require shutting 145 St and 148 St. Great map! The skip-stop service can continue down Nostrand if the line is extended south of Flatbush. But why have the longer (and potentially more popular) Utica extension run local east of Franklin? That's why I prefer to run the local from Franklin to New Lots and leave the unchanged (including the overnight extension to New Lots, as is currently done for the ). Then if Utica is done, the can be put on the extension (with a shuttle from New Lots to Atlantic overnights). And I noticed you've got the running on the Brighton Line express there too. Interesting... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6946 Posted August 1, 2018 2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: Great map! The skip-stop service can continue down Nostrand if the line is extended south of Flatbush. But why have the longer (and potentially more popular) Utica extension run local east of Franklin? That's why I prefer to run the local from Franklin to New Lots and leave the unchanged (including the overnight extension to New Lots, as is currently done for the ). Then if Utica is done, the can be put on the extension (with a shuttle from New Lots to Atlantic overnights). And I noticed you've got the running on the Brighton Line express there too. Interesting... What replaces the on Sea Beach if it moves to Brighton, and what happens to the (B)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coney Island Av Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6947 Posted August 1, 2018 A few things to note: -Rogers doesn't justify swapping the and equipment because the former has a lot of overcrowding problems, and is the longest IRT line in the system. Putting the R62As on the would only worsen these issues. Plus, the latter commonly gets rerouted to Lexington. IMO Lexington CBTC will have to wait, considering those R62As on the will stay there until retirement. They were put on the because it would yield less harm when compared to putting them on the more-busier express . -The on Brighton I'll explain later in a proposal for deinterlining Dekalb. Rogers was the main focus in my analysis, not Dekalb. -The runs local east of Franklin because the bellmouths for Utica only branch off of the local tracks. It would be more complex to build such connection from the express. -Other than that, I agree with most of the other points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6948 Posted August 1, 2018 22 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said: What replaces the on Sea Beach if it moves to Brighton, and what happens to the ? My guess is that his "plan" has the down Sea Beach and West End via 4th Avenue Express. Either way, it's just as silly as doing the same with the and . These proposals, which seem to be endlessly regurgitated by certain forum users, don't actually fix the DeKalb issue; they simply move the problems elsewhere. It inconveniences the customers without providing significant benefits. At least @RR503 ended up getting the right idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6949 Posted August 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, P3F said: My guess is that his "plan" has the down Sea Beach and West End via 4th Avenue Express. Either way, it's just as silly as doing the same with the and . These proposals, which seem to be endlessly regurgitated by certain forum users, don't actually fix the DeKalb issue; they simply move the problems elsewhere. It inconveniences the customers without providing significant benefits. At least @RR503 ended up getting the right idea. Yeah, the only gain in doing it that way is the and become full-time routes this way. I presume the would be Sea Beach and the would remain West End. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted August 1, 2018 Share #6950 Posted August 1, 2018 20 minutes ago, P3F said: My guess is that his "plan" has the down Sea Beach and West End via 4th Avenue Express. Either way, it's just as silly as doing the same with the and . These proposals, which seem to be endlessly regurgitated by certain forum users, don't actually fix the DeKalb issue; they simply move the problems elsewhere. It inconveniences the customers without providing significant benefits. At least @RR503 ended up getting the right idea. Not to belabor the point, but I don't think Dekalb deinterlining is a necessarily bad thing -- I just think it must be an action of last resort. As you all have heard me say thousands of times now, there are a plethora of easy-to-implement operational changes in the area that would markedly increase capacity/reliability. Because merge delays/capacity issues are *generally* operating environment and not operations planning issues, I think that it would be a betrayal of agency purpose (which provide the best possible service to New Yorkers) to not at least attempt ameliorating the Dekalb situation through operational devices before we penalize riders. If I felt that all that could be done to make that junction work operationally had been done -- and yet we were still seeing massive and unsustainable capacity erosion and delays -- then I'd be for deinterlining. Needless to say, that effort has not been demonstrated yet. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.