Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RR503]

19 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

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...

Oh, absolutely. The fact that we have all these terminals pointing in each others' general direction without connection makes me crazy. T-REX feels a bit overdone (do we *really* need a 3rd Avenue line), but I think its general direction is true -- New York needs regional rail. 

24 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

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 )

This is the issue with any Chrystie deinterlining proposal -- how do we mitigate the impact on Broadway/Myrtle riders. Additional travel/transfer time aside, I'm honestly unsure that the infrastructure at Essex/Canal could take that level of peak-hour surge crowding (*makes plug for my Nassau rebuild proposal*). Maybe the numbers work out -- Culver/QB savings outweigh the negative impact on Central Bk riders -- but it's nevertheless an issue, especially as those areas build out. We don't want all the ridership pressure to be on the  -- they already have their hands full.

This is why I'm such a big advocate of sending SAS to Manhattan Bridge-North and the  to Myrtle/Jamaica -- but of course, that proposal predicates itself on the existence of SAS. 

'Tis a Gordian knot, this subway... 

[Around the Horn]

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Oh, absolutely. The fact that we have all these terminals pointing in each others' general direction without connection makes me crazy. T-REX feels a bit overdone (do we *really* need a 3rd Avenue line), but I think its general direction is true -- New York needs regional rail.

I'd have to agree here... You don't really need a 3rd Avenue line unless/until that New Jersey-Midtown loop gets built...

[bobtehpanda]

13 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

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...

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

There are, conveniently, a pair of tracks from Atlantic Terminal to Jamaica that are about to (effectively) get abandoned. The only tricky thing (well two) is getting under the river, and clearing the Lex, which runs on Park Av S.

[R68OnBroadway]

On 10/7/2018 at 7:44 PM, 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. 

(a picture and more stuff)

What program do you use to create these maps?

[RR503]

17 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What program do you use to create these maps?

Illustrator. Definitely worth the money. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

On 10/7/2018 at 11:39 PM, RR503 said:

Oh, absolutely. The fact that we have all these terminals pointing in each others' general direction without connection makes me crazy. T-REX feels a bit overdone (do we *really* need a 3rd Avenue line), but I think its general direction is true -- New York needs regional rail. 

I brought the T-Rex proposal up earlier. I think you're right- we do need regional rail, and I have had a few lines planned out.

-A line from Bergenline to GCT or Penn

-Jersey-Midtown loop

-Through-running lines

[RR503]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:58 PM, Union Tpke said:

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

I realized I never responded to this -- apologies!

Basically, on some cars, there's a function that allows you to reopen only stuck doors rather than the whole half-train. So if someone is holding the doors, you can open only those leaves and allow them in instead of re-opening everyone, encouraging more of the same behavior. This'd be really great at stations like Union Square and 42 on the Lex where repetitive door-holding can jack dwell times 15-20 seconds beyond what they'd be if the first close had held. 

As it has been explained to me, the practice is discouraged because you aren't supposed to close down on people in the first place. Which, sure, is fair, but in a crowded station, you're almost certain to do so.

[Union Tpke]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I realized I never responded to this -- apologies!

Basically, on some cars, there's a function that allows you to reopen only stuck doors rather than the whole half-train. So if someone is holding the doors, you can open only those leaves and allow them in instead of re-opening everyone, encouraging more of the same behavior. This'd be really great at stations like Union Square and 42 on the Lex where repetitive door-holding can jack dwell times 15-20 seconds beyond what they'd be if the first close had held. 

As it has been explained to me, the practice is discouraged because you aren't supposed to close down on people in the first place. Which, sure, is fair, but in a crowded station, you're almost certain to do so.

That would also be great at Roosevelt and Flushing-Main. I never knew about that function.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/7/2018 at 7:44 PM, RR503 said:

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. 

...

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. 

I’ve been saying - probably ad nausem - that 2nd Avenue needs a Queens service and that the current MTA plan is fatally flawed without one. Then again, lower SAS does really seem like an afterthought...likely because MTA didn’t (possibly still don’t) want to do it. 

As for the “menu of maps,” (which really do illustrate well the possibilities for expanded service) my feeling is if you can have  express and  local on Queens Blvd, then you can get away with  express and  local on CPW. I almost think if you’re going to run the  local on CPW and 8th Avenue all the way to WTC, then why even have a  train?

On 10/7/2018 at 9:01 PM, 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. 

 

On 10/7/2018 at 8:58 PM, 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.hha

Maybe convert 36th Street into an express station? It probably would be a much more difficult job, than, say Woodhaven Blvd, but at least then if a southbound  and  get to 36th at the same time, the  wouldn’t be stuck in the tunnel between stations if the  is sent first.

[RR503]

39 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for the “menu of maps,” (which really do illustrate well the possibilities for expanded service) my feeling is if you can have  express and  local on Queens Blvd, then you can get away with  express and  local on CPW. I almost think if you’re going to run the  local on CPW and 8th Avenue all the way to WTC, then why even have a  train?

Thank you! Glad you like it.

I think keeping  and  exp/local is a perfectly defensible choice -- I've definitely swung that way in the past. That said, I tend to lean towards  local and / express as it makes scheduling and capacity easier to manage. Because the combination of Euclid/Lefferts/Rockaways could (if the merge at Hoyt is operated well) produce more than 30tph, I'd want its capabilities spent on the market that needs them the most -- namely, Queens. Yes, you can mix and match trains from the (less capable) WTC terminal with those from Brooklyn to obtain the same result, but as I'm sure some here are itching to say, that unevenness in throughput basically forces you to schedule gappy service, which is, well, less than optimal. 

As for the , the idea is that you preserve interlining at 145 --  takes over the  local on Concourse while  goes express;  terminates at 168 while  goes express to 207. Deinterlining can't be a religion; it should be used sparingly. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

As for the , the idea is that you preserve interlining at 145 --  takes over the  local on Concourse while  goes express;  terminates at 168 while  goes express to 207. Deinterlining can't be a religion; it should be used sparingly

Does this mean that  trains would be running on Weekends in your proposal? 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Does this mean that  trains would be running on Weekends in your proposal? 

I'd say 99.9% chances yes.

[RR503]

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Does this mean that  trains would be running on Weekends in your proposal? 

Yes. No  on weekends;  local in the Bx. 

Late nights,  goes local to 207. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/9/2018 at 10:03 PM, RR503 said:

Thank you! Glad you like it.

I think keeping  and  exp/local is a perfectly defensible choice -- I've definitely swung that way in the past. That said, I tend to lean towards  local and / express as it makes scheduling and capacity easier to manage. Because the combination of Euclid/Lefferts/Rockaways could (if the merge at Hoyt is operated well) produce more than 30tph, I'd want its capabilities spent on the market that needs them the most -- namely, Queens. Yes, you can mix and match trains from the (less capable) WTC terminal with those from Brooklyn to obtain the same result, but as I'm sure some here are itching to say, that unevenness in throughput basically forces you to schedule gappy service, which is, well, less than optimal. 

As for the , the idea is that you preserve interlining at 145 --  takes over the  local on Concourse while  goes express;  terminates at 168 while  goes express to 207. Deinterlining can't be a religion; it should be used sparingly. 

 

On 10/10/2018 at 7:32 PM, RR503 said:

Yes. No  on weekends;  local in the Bx. 

Late nights,  goes local to 207. 

This plan seems to be a bit of a blast from the past in that it would restore the pre-1998 Concourse services. But also interesting, over on the Washington Heights side, is that it kind of reminds me of the 1991 proposal by the MTA as part of a reduced-service plan. The initial proposal was to run the  local weekdays to/from 168, the  full-time local to/from 205 and the  (on 6th Ave at the time) to/from 207 on weekdays with the local  replacing the  during other times. The  would have run from 21/Queensbridge seven days a week, except late nights (replaced by the ) and the  would have been eliminated. Although the proposal received a big thumbs-down when made public, it would, interestingly, have deinterlined CPW in the process.

The biggest differences here would be that the  goes back to The Bronx and that the role that would have been filled by the  is called the . And probably, the frequency of each service too.

Edited October 12, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Caelestor]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

This plan seems to be a bit of a blast from the past in that it would restore the pre-1998 Concourse services. But also interesting, over on the Washington Heights side, is that it kind of reminds me of the 1991 proposal by the MTA as part of a reduced-service plan. The initial proposal was to run the  local weekdays to/from 168, the  full-time local to/from 205 and the  (on 6th Ave at the time) to/from 207 on weekdays with the local  replacing the  during other times. The  would have run from 21/Queensbridge seven days a week, except late nights (replaced by the ) and the  would have been eliminated. Although the proposal received a big thumbs-down when made public, it would, interestingly, have deinterlined CPW in the process.

The biggest differences here would be that the  goes back to The Bronx and that the role that would have been filled by the  is called the . And probably, the frequency of each service too.

In many ways, the upper 8 Ave line is similar to the QBL, in that express demand is much greater than local demand. On weekends, both lines have one local service and two express services. In addition, both SAS and Astoria have one service each on weekends, so only 8 services are currently being allocated across the 3 B Division trunk lines on weekends. 

Likewise, the B Division currently has 7 services coming in from the south: Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Fulton (local and express), and Brighton (local only on weekends). An additional branch, Jamaica/Metropolitan, has no service on weekends.

Lastly, there exists a few quirks which complicates things. The most important ones are 

• Only the 8 Ave express tracks can access Brooklyn
• Only the 6 Ave local tracks can reach the Williamsburg bridge
• The only optimal outlet for the 6 Ave local tracks at the northern end is QBL
• Likewise, the only optimal outlet for the 6 Ave express tracks at the northern end is CPW

Given all this information, I would like to propose an improved operating plan with 3 distinct times of service: late night, weekends, and weekdays. The 53 St / 6 Ave and 60 St / QBL connections are removed from regular service to increase capacity on 8 Ave long-term.

Late night:

• 6 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two services
  • 6 Ave
    •  Concourse / CPW / 6 Ave / 4 Ave / West End
    •  QBL / 63 St / 6 Ave / Culver
  • Broadway
    •  SAS / Broadway / Brighton via Bridge
    •  Astoria / Broadway / 4 Ave - Bay Ridge
  • 8 Ave
    •  8 Ave / Fulton
    •  QBL / 53 St / 8 Ave - terminates at WTC
• The  short turns at Whitehall St via Montague St - long-term it would serve SAS via the Bridge full-time
• The  can be extended to Essex St full-time for a full-time  connection if ridership warrants it

Weekends:

• Northern branches
  • Retain one local service and two express services on CPW and QBL
  • One service to Astoria and two services to SAS - the latter is more likely to be extended in the future
• Southern branches
  • One service each for Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Jamaica/Metropolitan, and Brighton
  • Local and express service on Fulton
• 9 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two local services and one express service
  • 6 Ave
    •  Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express / West End
    •  QBL express / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Culver local
    •  QBL local / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Jamaica local
  • Broadway
    •  SAS / Broadway express / 4 Ave express / Sea Beach via Bridge
    •  SAS / Broadway local / Brighton local via Bridge
    •  Astoria / Broadway local / Bay Ridge local
  • 8 Ave
    •  8 Ave express / Fulton express
    •  8 Ave local: 168 St - WTC
    •  QBL express / 53 St / 8 Ave local / Fulton local
• Interlining (local / express track switches) is acceptable when only 3 services are running

Weekdays:

• 12 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two local services and two express services
  • 6 Ave:
    •  Concourse local / CPW local / 6 Ave express / Brighton express
    •  Concourse express / CPW express / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express / West End
    •  QBL express / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Culver local
    •  QBL local / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Jamaica local
  • Broadway
    •  SAS / Broadway express / 4 Ave express / Sea Beach via Bridge
    •  SAS / Broadway express / Brighton local via Bridge
    •  Astoria / Broadway local / Bay Ridge local
      • Additional  trains would supplement Astoria - Whitehall St and possibly 4 Ave / Sea Beach during rush hour
  • 8 Ave
    •  8 Ave express / Fulton express
    •  8 Ave local: 168 St - WTC
    •  QBL express / 53 St / 8 Ave express / Fulton local
    •  QBL local / 53 St / 8 Ave local: terminates at WTC
• Deinterlining is used to maximize capacity at rush hour except along 8 Ave, which has the most spare capacity out of the trunk lines based on projected ridership and service levels.

Note that this operating plan falls apart if SAS Phase 3 is ever built, but by then ridership patterns may have changed. I'm half-expecting the northern extension to 3 Ave - 149 St to be built before Phase 3 comes on the table.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Caelestor

[Union Tpke]

On 10/9/2018 at 10:03 PM, RR503 said:

Thank you! Glad you like it.

I think keeping  and  exp/local is a perfectly defensible choice -- I've definitely swung that way in the past. That said, I tend to lean towards  local and / express as it makes scheduling and capacity easier to manage. Because the combination of Euclid/Lefferts/Rockaways could (if the merge at Hoyt is operated well) produce more than 30tph, I'd want its capabilities spent on the market that needs them the most -- namely, Queens. Yes, you can mix and match trains from the (less capable) WTC terminal with those from Brooklyn to obtain the same result, but as I'm sure some here are itching to say, that unevenness in throughput basically forces you to schedule gappy service, which is, well, less than optimal. 

 As for the , the idea is that you preserve interlining at 145 --  takes over the  local on Concourse while  goes express;  terminates at 168 while  goes express to 207. Deinterlining can't be a religion; it should be used sparingly. 

You often say that TPH could go up if merges are managed better. How can operations do this if trains get held by doors or if dwell times are high, for example? I know that it has been done in the past, but I personally haven't seen it. Thanks.

What would you do in terms of yard assignments as the  and  can't both be out of 207th? Would you have several  trains before the rush originate at Euclid? Greater usage of 174th?

Also, why would you restore the pre-1998 service pattern?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Union Tpke

[Union Tpke]

@RR503 Concerning  service, I would have 8 TPH go to Metropolitan, allowing 16 TPH  and have 4 TPH short-turn at Second Avenue (these could continue to Church Avenue). Do you agree with this set up?

[Union Tpke]

On 10/7/2018 at 9:36 PM, RR503 said:

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.

This might be a foolish question, but are you referring to the ability to put gap trains into service when you say flex capacity?

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

You often say that TPH could go up if merges are managed better. How can operations do this if trains get held by doors or if dwell times are high, for example? I know that it has been done in the past, but I personally haven't seen it. Thanks.

This is a crucial question. The way I see it, overlong dwell times are symptomatic and aggravatory of capacity reductions, not causative of them. We can only run x tph because people hold doors because we only run x tph. So really, you just have to break this vicious cycle -- and I think this is where measures like encouraging local recycle and mounting a public information campaign could be helpful. 

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

 What would you do in terms of yard assignments as the  and  can't both be out of 207th? Would you have several  trains before the rush originate at Euclid? Greater usage of 174th?

 Also, why would you restore the pre-1998 service pattern?

Well, remember that the  and  will have significantly shorter runs (168/BPB to WTC), so I'd imagine that a combo of 207/Concourse/174 put-ins along with overnight storage on the many relay tracks along the corridor would suffice. If not, yes, Euclid runs would be necessary. 

As for why, the idea is to deinterline the 59th/50th area without totally screwing riders up north. Sending  to 207 and  to 205 allows both branches of CPW to get express service to the core, which, IMO, is a must given those areas' distance. 

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 Concerning  service, I would have 8 TPH go to Metropolitan, allowing 16 TPH  and have 4 TPH short-turn at Second Avenue (these could continue to Church Avenue). Do you agree with this set up?

Yup!

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

This might be a foolish question, but are you referring to the ability to put gap trains into service when you say flex capacity?

Not exactly, no. Most of the subway's signal system was designed to allow trains to run about 90 seconds apart. That throughput was never scheduled as you'd have zero resiliency, but the capacity nevertheless remained. Thus, when something went wrong, there was that inherent capability to absorb delays/displaced trains, allowing faster incident recovery. With the proliferation of timers, the reduction in braking capability, the extension of control lines, the fear culture etc, that capacity no longer exists -- meaning normal operation is taking place on a razor thin capacity margin. So, when something goes down, its negative effects cannot be absorbed easily, all but forcing endless cascades. 

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

This is a crucial question. The way I see it, overlong dwell times are symptomatic and aggravatory of capacity reductions, not causative of them. We can only run x tph because people hold doors because we only run x tph. So really, you just have to break this vicious cycle -- and I think this is where measures like encouraging local recycle and mounting a public information campaign could be helpful. 

Well, remember that the  and  will have significantly shorter runs (168/BPB to WTC), so I'd imagine that a combo of 207/Concourse/174 put-ins along with overnight storage on the many relay tracks along the corridor would suffice. If not, yes, Euclid runs would be necessary. 

As for why, the idea is to deinterline the 59th/50th area without totally screwing riders up north. Sending  to 207 and  to 205 allows both branches of CPW to get express service to the core, which, IMO, is a must given those areas' distance. 

Yup!

Not exactly, no. Most of the subway's signal system was designed to allow trains to run about 90 seconds apart. That throughput was never scheduled as you'd have zero resiliency, but the capacity nevertheless remained. Thus, when something went wrong, there was that inherent capability to absorb delays/displaced trains, allowing faster incident recovery. With the proliferation of timers, the reduction in braking capability, the extension of control lines, the fear culture etc, that capacity no longer exists -- meaning normal operation is taking place on a razor thin capacity margin. So, when something goes down, its negative effects cannot be absorbed easily, all but forcing endless cascades. 

Can you elaborate on the extension of control lines?

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Can you elaborate on the extension of control lines?

Around the time of the Williamsburg Bridge accident, there was a study done of all signals in the system. The study evaluated whether or not a train (given the reduced braking rates that were then normal) would be able to stop within block, and made recommendations as per the results. Thousands of locations where stopping distance wasn't sufficient for safe operation were identified. The mitigation usually took the form of a control line extension -- lengthening the area of track which, if occupied, would cause a given signal to be red -- or timing -- to reduce the speed, and thus the stopping distance, of a train in the area. 

The idiocy of reducing speeds/increasing spacing instead of fixing brakes is at fault here, yes, but also is the NTSB mandated increase in signal safety margins after W'burg. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is all bad, either. 

[Union Tpke]

Just now, RR503 said:

Around the time of the Williamsburg Bridge accident, there was a study done of all signals in the system. The study evaluated whether or not a train (given the reduced braking rates that were then normal) would be able to stop within block, and made recommendations as per the results. Thousands of locations where stopping distance wasn't sufficient for safe operation were identified. The mitigation usually took the form of a control line extension -- lengthening the area of track which, if occupied, would cause a given signal to be red -- or timing -- to reduce the speed, and thus the stopping distance, of a train in the area. 

The idiocy of reducing speeds/increasing spacing instead of fixing brakes is at fault here, yes, but also is the NTSB mandated increase in signal safety margins after W'burg. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is all bad, either. 

I didn't realize that that was called a control line extension. I am well aware of this. Thanks.

[Union Tpke]

For a book on the modern subway crisis, the introduction/ch. 1 should focus on the 1995 Willy B derailment. The short-sided approach really cost NYCT once ridership started to increase and as maintenance decreased.

[RR503]

3 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

For a book on the modern subway crisis, the introduction/ch. 1 should focus on the 1995 Willy B derailment. The short-sided approach really cost NYCT once ridership started to increase and as maintenance decreased.

Absolutely. The operational/cultural changes that led to and resulted from that crash are the crisis. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

So my IRL friend wants to create a new subway company, entirely new, just so he can build a 5th avenue line.

Well then.