Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

17 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

So if I understand what you're saying correctly, SAS in its current state would require an additional underwater tunnel to Queens to use its capacity efficiently? And the separate isn't a good idea because it adds another merge?

I do get your point about 8th Avenue...

Yes. The issue with the  isn't the merge -- in a well operated system, merges shouldn't reduce capacity -- it's just that it doesn't solve the  interaction that limits Lower SAS capacity. 

Another map. I put together what I believe is the best you can do with SAS using only current infrastructure. The dashed colored lines show where trains would go if they weren't blocked (I also omitted Bway for clarity/because you've proposed a workable solution for it). This should clarify how the 's remaining on 53 causes issues on 8th...

I also think that it's worth noting that Lower SAS as designed can never add capacity to the system. If it only has the , it is running at half capacity, and by merit of the  being blocked from SAS, Broadway is too. Because, well, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, that plan isn't adding any throughput that wasn't already there. If you then run a new SAS service over 63, you're then blocking 8th as shown above. It truly is a lose-lose plan -- unless some new tunnel is built. 

[Union Tpke]

22 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Ok, quick idea off the top of my head...

If the combination of Broadway Express  and 2nd Avenue  is going to be a capacity issue on SAS, why not send the  to a new "short turn" terminus at Columbus Circle and only have the  and  on SAS? Maybe then you can have an SAS-Northern Blvd service (  ?) to give Phases 3 and 4 30 TPH...  

so basically: 

Broadway/4th Av Express 24-30 TPH  

Columbus Circle 12-15 TPH  

SAS above 72nd 30 TPH  

SAS below 72nd 30 TPH  

I had thought of such an idea before.

[Union Tpke]

52 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. The issue with the  isn't the merge -- in a well operated system, merges shouldn't reduce capacity -- it's just that it doesn't solve the  interaction that limits Lower SAS capacity. 

Another map. I put together what I believe is the best you can do with SAS using only current infrastructure. The dashed colored lines show where trains would go if they weren't blocked (I also omitted Bway for clarity/because you've proposed a workable solution for it). This should clarify how the 's remaining on 53 causes issues on 8th...

 

I also think that it's worth noting that Lower SAS as designed can never add capacity to the system. If it only has the , it is running at half capacity, and by merit of the  being blocked from SAS, Broadway is too. Because, well, 1/2 + 1/2 = 1, that plan isn't adding any throughput that wasn't already there. If you then run a new SAS service over 63, you're then blocking 8th as shown above. It truly is a lose-lose plan -- unless some new tunnel is built. 

If anything, a short-turn terminal at 55th or a 72nd Street L.L. could be built.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

18 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

You would likely have to build a new lower level of 59th/8th to make this work, though if you somehow do that AND make it so it can connect to the CPW line, then it may be worth doing because it would allow for additional flexibility, then it might be possible, especially if the could replace the on CPW.

So what would then replace the  from Columbus Circle and points south? Not extra  service; it will blocked by the . Can’t do a 6th Avenue express service from the 63rd St tunnel because the  and turquoise V already would have all of that tunnel’s capacity. Not 2nd Avenue because the line north of 63rd would be at capacity from the  and . You’d be stuck with 6th Avenue express tracks running at half-capacity.

These are the pitfalls of reverse branching...

Edited October 4, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

If anything, a short-turn terminal at 55th or a 72nd Street L.L. could be built.

<snip>

Ideally, lower SAS would go to a terminal under 72nd St. This would allow northern/eastern extension without impediments. If not, a short turn terminus for Broadway Exp as per @Around the Horn's plan, along with one along Lower SAS (55th St) would have to be built if the line is to ever be of value. 

Edited October 5, 2018 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

Since the issue on SAS is Phases 1 and 2 and the idea of a tunnel under 72nd Street has been floating around, I’d have to ask what if such a tunnel was not feasible? Then what?

Anyways, here’s the service pattern I’d see if such a LL tunnel was feasible:

 to 125th Street

 to 72LL and terminate

 53rd Street tunnel

 63rd Street tunnel. 

 Astoria via 60 St tunnel 

The best thing that  can consider is to NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT building Phase 3 until such an issue was resolved. I’m not against reverse branching at all, but I see providing optimal service as a higher priority! 

Edit: I just read @RR503s comment about @Around the Horns proposal. But I still have my doubts

 

Edited October 5, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But then you’d have to transfer from the  to the  at 72nd St if you want to continue down 2nd Avenue. While the majority of SAS riders will likely not be traveling from Lexington/125 all the way to Hanover Sq, it could certainly be an issue for a significant number of people who might board and exit at intermediate stops - like folks going from other parts of East Harlem or the UES to Midtown East or Murray Hill.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Since the issue on SAS is Phases 1 and 2 and the idea of a tunnel under 72nd Street has been floating around, I’d have to ask what if such a tunnel was not feasible? Then what?

Anyways, here’s the service pattern I’d see if such a LL tunnel was feasible:

 to 125th Street

 to 72LL and terminate

 53rd Street tunnel

 63rd Street tunnel. 

 Astoria via 60 St tunnel 

The best thing that  can consider is to NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT building Phase 3 until such an issue was resolved. I’m not against reverse branching at all, but I see providing optimal service as a higher priority! 

Edit: I just read @RR503s comment about @Around the Horns proposal. But I still have my doubts

 

no. T stays uptown. Fordham Plaza is our best bet for a  train.

[Caelestor]

You can rearrange the services all you want, but ultimately, we want to maximize throughput on the existing infrastructure given that only one track pair of capacity through Midtown has been added in the past 75 years.

Revisiting my past analysis, here's the 2019 AM peak service levels on the B Division trunk lines during the  shutdown. Only one pair of tracks will be at its max capacity.

• 6 Ave
  • Local tracks:  28 tph SB / 28 tph NB - maximum capacity
    • It's believed that 2 SB / 4 NB  trains will be rerouted to 96 St SAS
  • Express tracks:  15 tph SB, 20 tph NB
    • No changes
• Broadway
  • 10 tph SB / 10 tph NB,  10 tph SB / 11 tph NB,  8 tph SB / 10 tph NB,   8 tph SB / 6 tph NB  
    • 2 fewer  trains SB
• 8 Ave
  •   10 tph SB / 17 tph NB, 6 tph SB / 8 tph NB, 15 tph SB / 15 tph NB 
    •  trains lengthened (25% capacity increase)

The Broadway corridor could easily have 25 local tph (15 tph Astoria, 10 tph QBL) + 20 express tph SAS if the  was permanently rerouted to SAS. This leaves very little capacity left for the  and that's why Phase 3 will have to be reevaluated when the time comes in a decade or so.

 

On 10/3/2018 at 4:59 PM, Around the Horn said:

Ok, quick idea off the top of my head...

If the combination of Broadway Express  and 2nd Avenue  is going to be a capacity issue on SAS, why not send the  to a new "short turn" terminus at Columbus Circle and only have the  and  on SAS? Maybe then you can have an SAS-Northern Blvd service (  ?) to give Phases 3 and 4 30 TPH...  

so basically: 

Broadway/4th Av Express 24-30 TPH  

Columbus Circle 12-15 TPH  

SAS above 72nd 30 TPH  

SAS below 72nd 30 TPH  

I understand the intention, but it makes no sense to terminate the at Columbus Circle. I'd rather build the short turn terminal at 72 St so that Lex Ave - 63 St has full service and future expansion into Queens or Bronx is still an option.

[RR503]

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you’d have to transfer from the  to the  at 72nd St if you want to continue down 2nd Avenue. While the majority of SAS riders will likely not be traveling from Lexington/125 all the way to Hanover Sq, it could certainly be an issue for a significant number of people who might board and exit at intermediate stops - like folks going from other parts of East Harlem or the UES to Midtown East or Murray Hill.

I actually don't think it's wise for SAS to go head-to-head with the Lex. The latter has real expresses and is more central to the East Side's offices. What SAS could (and should) do is siphon riders from the former corridor indirectly. The  began that -- it provides a service the UES didn't have, namely, a one seat ride to west Midtown. This thinking should be continued. Lower SAS could, via a new tunnel, finally give Queens a one seat ride to the East Side. It could equally take the Third Ave corridor, reducing the bus transfer load on the . 

[LGA Link N Train]

42 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I actually don't think it's wise for SAS to go head-to-head with the Lex. The latter has real expresses and is more central to the East Side's offices. What SAS could (and should) do is siphon riders from the former corridor indirectly. The  began that -- it provides a service the UES didn't have, namely, a one seat ride to west Midtown. This thinking should be continued. Lower SAS could, via a new tunnel, finally give Queens a one seat ride to the East Side. It could equally take the Third Ave corridor, reducing the bus transfer load on the . 

This plan may controdict what you said a little bit but here's an idea I came up just now

goes to 125th and Terminate

goes to 72 LL and continues on a lower level to Fordham Plaza

(Secondary SAS route) in the short term using 63rd street tunnel sharing with the but later on uses its own tunnel to Queens. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Have a new idea on how we could use SAS to reorganize some services:

The bypass is built with two branches: An RBB branch for JFK/RPK/Central Queens, and a Union Turnpike branch to Little Neck Pkwy. Services would be structured like this:

 same

 truncated to Church Avenue with maybe some runs to 18th, now skips 75th Av

 extended to 18th

 becomes  and is rerouted via 2nd local (23rd and 34th would be local stations). Diverges from SAS after 72nd to a new tunnel (which the  would also use) under Broadway/79th St. A new stop would be built at 79th/York before traveling under the East River. A new stop would be built at 31st for a transfer to the  , and afterwards the line will connect to Queens Blvd local via flying junction before 46th, while the would diverge to the bypass. Continues down Hillside until Union Turnpike, where it will run under as a local while the  takes the express. Local stops at Main, Utopia, FLB and Winchester. Express stops at 188th, Bell and Little Neck Pkwy. 

 Euclid to LGA

 FHills to Whitehall or City Hall lower

 Rockaway Park B116- Coney Island via Rockaway, RBB, Bypass, 63rd, 6th, Culver express/local. Stops after Queensbridge would be Woodside, Woodhaven, Metropolitan, Jamaica (passageway to a relocated 104th St) , Atlantic, Liberty, Howard (Aqueducts skipped via express tracks) and then continues to RPK. 10 tph to RPK and 5 tph to Howard. 

 CI- Fordham Plaza via 2nd Av in Manhattan and 3rd in the the Bronx

 125th/Broadway-CI

 Little Neck Pkwy/Union Turnpike to Hanover Sq via Union Turnpike express, bypass and 2nd express. 

NOTE: This is more or so a fantasy proposal that would be used for a quick (near) one-seat ride to JFK.

Edited October 6, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[LGA Link N Train]

I've been thinking about a post SAS proposal for some time.....

If doesn't consider building a LL on 72nd (which would be a huge mistake) then here's what they should do: 

unchanged 

rerouted to Metropolitan Avenue via the

is now the 8th Avenue Express heading to Lefferts or under a new junction to Jamaica 

would now be the Central Park West Local and would be rerouted via the line and would terminate at either Broadway Junction, Atlantic Avenue , or at Jamaica

is now the Queens Blvd Local and would either be an isolated line running at 26TPH or Share tracks with a rerouted

is now the Main Queens Blvd express and would possibly have two Branches (those being 179th and Jamaica Center)

trains would now terminate at a rebuilt Queens Plaza for better TPH. Trains would also make runs to 18th Avenue

trains are truncated to Essex Street but would now service Bay Ridge

trains are no longer routed to Metropolitan and would now service the Queens Blvd Express via 63rd Street and would Terminate at 179th Street and 2 Avenue (trains would service the Culver Local during rush hours to allow trains to run express) to avoid a bit of confusion, you could swap the and symbols 

trains run 15TPH to Astoria unless extended to LaGuardia Airport the route would run express but will no longer stop at 49th Street. 

trains are routed to Forest Hills or LaGuardia airport and would run a 12 to 16TPH schedule. If RBB was considered then you can route these trains to JFK. Trains would also run via West End and 4th Avenue Express. 

trains would now be routed to 125th Street and terminate at Euclid Avenue via @RR503's tunnel. Trains would run 8-12TPH under a new 57th Street Flip to continue on the Broadway Local tracks.  

trains would run with 18-22TPH with another 8-12 TPH short turning at 55th Street. Past 2nd Avenue/Houston Street, the would replace the and on the Manhattan Bridge and run via Brighton where it would run a split service similar to the

and all shuttle services are unaffected

service is deinterlined at Rogers

The is effectively eliminated

I'll make a map later. Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

[RR503]

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Have a new idea on how we could use SAS to reorganize some services:

The bypass is built with two branches: An RBB branch for JFK/RPK/Central Queens, and a Union Turnpike branch to Little Neck Pkwy. Services would be structured like this:

 same

 truncated to Church Avenue with maybe some runs to 18th, now skips 75th Av

 extended to 18th

 becomes  and is rerouted via 2nd local (23rd and 34th would be local stations). Diverges from SAS after 72nd to a new tunnel (which the  would also use) under Broadway/79th St. A new stop would be built at 79th/York before traveling under the East River. A new stop would be built at 31st for a transfer to the  , and afterwards the line will connect to Queens Blvd local via flying junction before 46th, while the would diverge to the bypass. Continues down Hillside until Union Turnpike, where it will run under as a local while the  takes the express. Local stops at Main, Utopia, FLB and Winchester. Express stops at 188th, Bell and Little Neck Pkwy. 

  Euclid to LGA

 FHills to Whitehall or City Hall lower

 Rockaway Park B116- Coney Island via Rockaway, RBB, Bypass, 63rd, 6th, Culver express/local. Stops after Queensbridge would be Woodside, Woodhaven, Metropolitan, Jamaica (passageway to a relocated 104th St) , Atlantic, Liberty, Howard (Aqueducts skipped via express tracks) and then continues to RPK. 10 tph to RPK and 5 tph to Howard. 

 CI- Fordham Plaza via 2nd Av in Manhattan and 3rd in the the Bronx

 125th/Broadway-CI

 Little Neck Pkwy/Union Turnpike to Hanover Sq via Union Turnpike express, bypass and 2nd express. 

NOTE: This is more or so a fantasy proposal that would be used for a quick (near) one-seat ride to JFK.

Beyond my issue with isolating the  by making it an east side route, this feels like a lot of reverse branching... Maybe I'm missing something important here, but why can't we just do

 Fulton Exp/8th Exp/53/QB Local to 71st 

 Culver Exp/Local/6th Local/63/QB Exp to P/A

 Broadway Exp/Upper SAS Local to 125th and/or Fordham 

 Fulton Local/Broadway Local/Astoria Local to LGA (or maybe even Flushing) 

 via Hillside Local/Bypass/72nd LL/Lower SAS/Manhattan Bridge north, and

 via CPW/6th Exp to Myrtle/Jamaica. 

Then you can branch off either the  or  to RBB and any of the  to a Union Tpk (or LIE, if I may make a plug for that idea -- though that would force it to be ) line. And all of that's done with a minimum of merging. 

[Coney Island Av]

I haven't been active in proposing ideas as of late, so let me share my thoughts on the matter at hand. 

While rerouting the  to 63rd with the  causes reverse-branching, there's still room for it due to the excess unused capacity available. And building a new tunnel for it, while not a waste, it'll still require money to be built. The infrastructure is already in place for the  to use.

The  taking over  service is a good idea, though I wouldn't reroute both to Jamaica. You can kill two birds with one stone by having the  to Coney Island via Culver Express while the  replaces  service out to Metropolitan. 

Some proposed flips include the "Canal Flip," or the "57 St Flip." The latter isn't necessary given you won't save time by skipping only 49 St. The Canal Flip will only make the express a lot more slower than it is, and it would require an extensive reconstruction of the interlocking before Canal. 

I'm not a big fan of splitting the  and  apart. It would cause 72 St to be overcrowded with people walking up and down the stairs just transfer, which will be a pain for many commuters. It's just like how deinterlining the  in the Bronx will cause 149 St to exceed capacity beyond full. 

For 72 St Lower, I'd build it as four tracks, so that one service can continue north to Bronx via new express tracks, and another to terminate there. This is how I'd do the proposals for the matter at hand:

: unchanged

: BPB to Metropolitan Av 

: unchanged

: Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island (via Culver Express weekdays, other times local)

: Howard Beach-JFK to Church Av (via RBB/QBL Local, 6 Av Local, and Culver Local)

: Forest Hills-71 Av to Church Av (via Queens Blvd Local, Crosstown-Culver Local) 

: Jamaica-179 St to Jamaica Center (rerouted up SAS, Bypass via 63rd) 

: Essex St to Bay Ridge-95 St

: Little Neck Pkwy to Coney Island (Union Turnpike Express, Bypass via Queensboro Bridge/57 St, Broadway Express, 4 Av Express) 

: Broadway-125 St to Coney Island

: Astoria (or LGA) to Euclid Av 

: 188 St-Fresh Meadows to Whitehall St (Union Turnpike/QBL Local, Broadway Local) 

: 72 St to Tottenville (2 Av Local, Staten Island Express)

: Gun Hill Road to Brighton Beach (2 Av Express, Brighton Express, 3 Av Local)

 

 

[Wallyhorse]

On 10/4/2018 at 6:43 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

So what would then replace the  from Columbus Circle and points south? Not extra  service; it will blocked by the . Can’t do a 6th Avenue express service from the 63rd St tunnel because the  and turquoise V already would have all of that tunnel’s capacity. Not 2nd Avenue because the line north of 63rd would be at capacity from the  and . You’d be stuck with 6th Avenue express tracks running at half-capacity.

These are the pitfalls of reverse branching...

What you could do is have the terminate at 59th/8th on Weekdays at peak hours and say 8:00 PM-6:00 AM weekdays and at all times on weekends and holidays, the could replace the on CPW (the would still be local on CPW overnights), perhaps running to 145 or 168 during those hours. 

[Around the Horn]

I just came up with this for shits and giggles when I was sick a while back, but I figured since it's a proposal I might as well share it here.

Here's my ideas for deinterlining the B-division.

(I'm including the original version but I did make some changes based on subsequent discussions here. Those changes are in red. TPH numbers listed here are for peak of the peak)

[The one major ground rule (which I only broke once for the to Euclid) is no new track]

---------

Norwood-205 St to Lefferts/Rockaways via Fulton/8 Av/Concourse Express [peak direction] (15 TPH, 7 Mott Av/8 Lefferts)

Norwood-205 St to Rockaways via Fulton/8 Av/Concourse Express [peak direction] (12 TPH, 6 Mott Av/6 B116 [if this is too much you can have some trains drop out at JFK] )

168 St to Brighton Beach via CPW local/6 Av/Brighton Express (15 TPH)

Bedford Park Blvd to Euclid Av via Concourse Local/8 Av Exp/Fulton Local (15 TPH)

Bedford Park Blvd to Lefferts Blvd via Concourse Local/8 Av/Fulton Exp (12 TPH)

207 St to Coney Island via CPW local/6 Av Exp/Brighton Local (15 TPH)

WTC to Forest Hills-71 Av via 8 Av/53 St/QBL local (30 TPH)

  *same as today

  *same as today

*same as today (Z peak direction express from Marcy to Broadway Junction)

*same as today 

Metropolitan Av to Jamaica Center via Myrtle Av/6 Av Local/QBL express (15 TPH, 12 TPH Metropolitan/3 TPH 2 Av)

96 St to Coney Island via Broadway Express/Sea Beach (15 TPH)

96 St to Coney Island via Broadway Express/West End (15 TPH)

Essex St to Bay Ridge-95 St via Nassau Street/4th Av local (12 TPH)

Astoria-Ditmars to Whitehall St or Gravesend-86 St via Broadway local/Montague/ (24 TPH, 10 to Whitehall/14 to Gravesend)

Astoria-Ditmars to Whitehall St or Euclid Av via Broadway local/Montague/Fulton St Local (24 TPH, 10 to Whitehall/14 to Euclid Av)

---------

Another idea I had for Queens Blvd is similar to what @RR503 drew in his map up thread:

Local

Express

local services would be 12 TPH each and express services would continue to be 15 TPH each

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

What you could do is have the terminate at 59th/8th on Weekdays at peak hours and say 8:00 PM-6:00 AM weekdays and at all times on weekends and holidays, the could replace the on CPW (the would still be local on CPW overnights), perhaps running to 145 or 168 during those hours. 

Sure, you could do that. It doesn’t mean that you should do that. And I don’t think you should. 

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I'm not a big fan of splitting the  and  apart. It would cause 72 St to be overcrowded with people walking up and down the stairs just transfer, which will be a pain for many commuters. It's just like how deinterlining the  in the Bronx will cause 149 St to exceed capacity beyond full. 

We haven't built the transfer yet. Most transfers that are terrible today are terrible because they weren't built to be fully used as transfer stations because of the whole "competing companies" BS. We can get it right the first time this time.

[RR503]

18 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I just came up with this for shits and giggles when I was sick a while back, but I figured since it's a proposal I might as well share it here.

Here's my ideas for deinterlining the B-division.

 (I'm including the original version but I did make some changes based on subsequent discussions here. Those changes are in red. TPH numbers listed here are for peak of the peak)

[The one major ground rule (which I only broke once for the to Euclid) is no new track]

<snip>

I like this. There are, of course, some things I'd do differently (not deinterlining Dekalb; sending CPW local to 8th local so Queens trains can get the more capable termini in Brooklyn), but I think that something along these lines is pretty much necessary for the system's future. 

If I may spam one more map, I dug up this 'menu,' if you will, of ways to deinterline the northern section of the B division. The assumption here is that the  stays local on QB because of its being eight cars, but that can change. 

Moving back to SAS, though, I think that whole corridor is a complex issue. The Lex is absolutely capable of running more than 23tph on its express tracks (it once did 32) -- it's merely a question of operations. We can only run 23tph because dwell times are so high because of crowding because we run 23tph. If we empowered C/Rs to close down faster/use local recycle, improved junction ops at 149 and Rogers, killed some GTs, and encouraged TOs to aggressively take advantage of STs, I'm sure you could saturate those tracks with more than 23, which would help ameliorate the base problem, adding capacity, etc, etc, etc. In fact, getting back to 30tph would by itself be a 30% capacity boost on the line.

That, combined with the reality that most Lex crowding delays occur at points where riders are transferring on/off the line (59th, 51st, 42nd, Fulton) suggests to me that Lower SAS capacity is better used to relieve the transfer load on the Lex -- so adding a true one-seat ride to Queens from the East Side, or building express tracks up into the 3rd Avenue area. For either endeavor to be effective, new tunnels are needed, as the simple reality is that any design of lower SAS without its own northbound track pair is simply a robbery of capacity from another trunk. 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I like this. There are, of course, some things I'd do differently (not deinterlining Dekalb; sending CPW local to 8th local so Queens trains can get the more capable termini in Brooklyn), but I think that something along these lines is pretty much necessary for the system's future. 

If I may spam one more map, I dug up this 'menu,' if you will, of ways to deinterline the northern section of the B division. The assumption here is that the  stays local on QB because of its being eight cars, but that can change. 

 

Moving back to SAS, though, I think that whole corridor is a complex issue. The Lex is absolutely capable of running more than 23tph on its express tracks (it once did 32) -- it's merely a question of operations. We can only run 23tph because dwell times are so high because of crowding because we run 23tph. If we empowered C/Rs to close down faster/use local recycle, improved junction ops at 149 and Rogers, killed some GTs, and encouraged TOs to aggressively take advantage of STs, I'm sure you could saturate those tracks with more than 23, which would help ameliorate the base problem, adding capacity, etc, etc, etc. In fact, getting back to 30tph would by itself be a 30% capacity boost on the line.

That, combined with the reality that most Lex crowding delays occur at points where riders are transferring on/off the line (59th, 51st, 42nd, Fulton) suggests to me that Lower SAS capacity is better used to relieve the transfer load on the Lex -- so adding a true one-seat ride to Queens from the East Side, or building express tracks up into the 3rd Avenue area. For either endeavor to be effective, new tunnels are needed, as the simple reality is that any design of lower SAS without its own northbound track pair is simply a robbery of capacity from another trunk. 

How could 36th Street handle all of the switching? The switches are slow and it really holds up service. I can't see this working.hha

What do you mean by "If we empowered C/Rs to close down faster/use local recycle"

Edited October 8, 2018 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

How could 36th Street handle all of the switching? The switches are slow and it really holds up service. I can't see this working.

Eh. They're all D20 -- if accompanied with a decent complement of STs (or, conveniently, CBTC), I don't see it being that big of an issue. It'd be 59th St, just with switches that are 5mph slower. 

[Union Tpke]

Just now, RR503 said:

Eh. They're all D20 -- if accompanied with a decent complement of STs (or, conveniently, CBTC), I don't see it being that big of an issue. It'd be 59th St, just with switches that are 5mph slower. 

I think you are being too optimistic. One of the reasons why the E and F can't always get to 29-30 is because of this junction. It will be a mess. The only parallel moves will be when the E and M, and the F and K are passing through the junction at the same time. Trains would have to be right on schedule not to mess up Queens Boulevard.

[RR503]

33 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I think you are being too optimistic. One of the reasons why the E and F can't always get to 29-30 is because of this junction. It will be a mess. The only parallel moves will be when the E and M, and the F and K are passing through the junction at the same time. Trains would have to be right on schedule not to mess up Queens Boulevard.

Am I? Or are we just so used to the operations chaos of today that we can't imagine it otherwise... 

In 1949, when we had fixed blocks, trains without speedometers, and a level of decentralization that would make the modern planner's eyes dry up, the IND achieved an OTP of 99.24%, the BMT 99.19, and the IRT 87.47. This was done while:

- West Fourth was interlined across D15/straight 20 switches;

- 60tph traversed Rogers junction

- 75tph traversed an un-rebuilt Dekalb (with more interlining than today, mind you)

- 64tph flowed through 59th St (serviced by D25 switches)

- 64tph flowed through 145th St (serviced by D20 switches)

So I daresay that any inability to coordinate movements and run a tight junction stems more from a lack of discipline and flex capacity than it does from any innate inability.

All of this said, it is unequivocally easier to run a deinterlined system. If studies show that 8- or 9- car s can hold their weight on Queens express (or if some capital/routing change is made to allow 10 car ) I'd consider that the better option.

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

That, combined with the reality that most Lex crowding delays occur at points where riders are transferring on/off the line (59th, 51st, 42nd, Fulton) suggests to me that Lower SAS capacity is better used to relieve the transfer load on the Lex -- so adding a true one-seat ride to Queens from the East Side, or building express tracks up into the 3rd Avenue area. For either endeavor to be effective, new tunnels are needed, as the simple reality is that any design of lower SAS without its own northbound track pair is simply a robbery of capacity from another trunk. 

First of all, great map!

Second, this is kind of drifting away from the topic of subway proposals, but I feel that if there were some way to extend Metro North to Lower Manhattan (akin to sending LIRR to GCT), perhaps that would alleviate crowding on Lex (at least during peak periods). Something along the lines of what RPA was proposing as the T-REX...

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Am I? Or are we just so used to the operations chaos of today that we can't imagine it otherwise... 

In 1949, when we had fixed blocks, trains without speedometers, and a level of decentralization that would make the modern planner's eyes dry up, the IND achieved an OTP of 99.24%, the BMT 99.19, and the IRT 87.47. This was done while:

- West Fourth was interlined across D15/straight 20 switches;

- 60tph traversed Rogers junction

- 75tph traversed an un-rebuilt Dekalb (with more interlining than today, mind you)

- 64tph flowed through 59th St (serviced by D25 switches)

- 64tph flowed through 145th St (serviced by D20 switches)

So I daresay that any inability to coordinate movements and run a tight junction stems more from a lack of discipline and flex capacity than it does from any innate inability.

All of this said, it is unequivocally easier to run a deinterlined system. If studies show that 8- or 9- car s can hold their weight on Queens express (or if some capital/routing change is made to allow 10 car ) I'd consider that the better option.

Perhaps if the ran from Jamaica Center to 2nd Av and the continued past Essex to Metropolitan Av, you could do something like that (however they would lose direct service to Midtown)

Actually, maybe a better idea: send the to Church Av via Culver Local and make the Culver Express... (In that case, people could transfer at Essex to both the and )