Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

 to a functional terminal (LGA, somewhere else, couldn't care less)

 to Co Op City

 to White Plains Road

 to Linden Blvd

 to Kings Highway

These are the ones I thought of. I would add a stop at Avenue K on the Nostrand extension.

I would add  to Murray Hill to create a functional terminal. I need to post my station design, which has three platforms and two tracks, with one island platform for boarding and two sides for exiting. My layout would reduce delays and segregate boarding and departing passengers. The Crew room and dispatcher's office would be located on the island platform, making it much easier for them to get to their train. There would be tail tracks past the station.

[Union Tpke]

26 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

These are the ones I thought of. I would add a stop at Avenue K on the Nostrand extension.

I would add  to Murray Hill to create a functional terminal. I need to post my station design, which has three platforms and two tracks, with one island platform for boarding and two sides for exiting. My layout would reduce delays and segregate boarding and departing passengers. The Crew room and dispatcher's office would be located on the island platform, making it much easier for them to get to their train. There would be tail tracks past the station.

@RR503 Here is my basic plan for the station:

New Flushing Line Terminal by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

The tail tracks are to the right.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Union Tpke

[ibroketheprinter]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

  To Far Rock LIRR Station

This is only a few blocks away

/  To Burke Av

 To Van Wyck

? What is the point?

 To Linden Boulevard 

 To 188th 

 To Court Square

It stops here already.

 Far Rock to 116

/  South Ferry (new station) to Hollis/Farmers

Not short and why? How are you going to build a stop at South Ferry when the line continues into the Montague Tunnels?

 34th st/10th av to Remsen/Flatbush 

Not short

 to LIE

 to 125

 to Clifton (and then to Saint George

This is not short

Brooklyn  to Lafayette 

I would connect it to Bedford-Nostrands

 to 53

?

 to Ludlow

Why?

/ South Side/Mount Vernon to Kings Hwy

Why?

 Jerome/Bainbridge to the Conduits 

?

 Wakefield/Woodlawn Avs to the Conduits

?

 to Co-Op city

This one is good

 Weehawken to Murray Hill

Weehawken is not short, but I agree concerning Murray Hill

 

 

These are all short, not including larger scale projects

I agree, most aren't great ideas. Just throwing it out there.

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 Here is my basic plan for the station:

New Flushing Line Terminal by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

The tail tracks are to the right.

Ah, the 'spanish solution.' 

Do we expect dwells to be the big issue? Spanish works when you're literally up against a 'there are too few doors for the volume of passengers' problem; otherwise it's just another set of doors to open/shut, which itself drives dwell. 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Ah, the 'spanish solution.' 

Do we expect dwells to be the big issue? Spanish works when you're literally up against a 'there are too few doors for the volume of passengers' problem; otherwise it's just another set of doors to open/shut, which itself drives dwell. 

This is intended to fix the issue at Flushing, with passengers unable to enter because so many people are coming out, backing up into the mezzanine. C/Rs often can't get into their cabs as a result. This is meant to separate the two flows.

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

This is intended to fix the issue at Flushing, with passengers unable to enter because so many people are coming out, backing up into the mezzanine. C/Rs often can't get into their cabs as a result. This is meant to separate the two flows.

That's a solid idea, but Flushing needs at least three tracks to turn trains without creating a nasty backup; if you want to go full Spanish solution you'd need to rebuild it as a two-level station to get each level set up that way. Here's a sample track map for that configuration:

[RR503]

6 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That's a solid idea, but Flushing needs at least three tracks to turn trains without creating a nasty backup; if you want to go full Spanish solution you'd need to rebuild it as a two-level station to get each level set up that way. Here's a sample track map for that configuration:

You don't need 3 tracks. 2 track terminals (for example, TSQ) have historically turned up to 36tph, and you're never really gonna need capacity for more than that.

[engineerboy6561]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You don't need 3 tracks. 2 track terminals (for example, TSQ) have historically turned up to 36tph, and you're never really gonna need capacity for more than that.

You can, but to my knowledge that's accomplished with a lot of tail tracks and there's also the concern of trying to manage the re-merging of trains right before the terminal. Especially because I believe some trains still turn at Willets because of capacity issues at Main, moving to a four-track two-level terminal would probably help the  a fair amount.

[RR503]

2 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

You can, but to my knowledge that's accomplished with a lot of tail tracks and there's also the concern of trying to manage the re-merging of trains right before the terminal. Especially because I believe some trains still turn at Willets because of capacity issues at Main, moving to a four-track two-level terminal would probably help the  a fair amount.

True, but if I had to guess, building out tail tracks is cheaper and simpler than building a double level stub terminus. 

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

True, but if I had to guess, building out tail tracks is cheaper and simpler than building a double level stub terminus. 

Fair, but that depends. At Flushing given the mezzanine structure it might make more sense to add a second level underneath the first one. Honestly, the whole damn Flushing line ought to be four tracks and it ought to continue out to Bayside

[RR503]

1 minute ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Fair, but that depends. At Flushing given the mezzanine structure it might make more sense to add a second level underneath the first one. Honestly, the whole damn Flushing line ought to be four tracks and it ought to continue out to Bayside

Underpinning existing structure is a whole can of worms that shouldn't be opened when possible. I'd bet good money that a 1 or 2 stop extension to an efficient, two track terminal would do the trick. 

With you on the 4 tracks, though. Hindsight is always 20/20. 

[Caelestor]

Hudson Yards, a two-track terminal with tail tracks, works fine. There's two potential improvements for the eastern end of the . The cheaper solution is to build tail tracks at Flushing Main St with crossovers so that trains can enter the terminal at higher speed. The more practical solution is to extend the  further out to a modern two-track terminal with tail tracks and relieve the bus transfers at Main St.

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, Caelestor said:

Hudson Yards, a two-track terminal with tail tracks, works fine. There's two potential improvements for the eastern end of the . The cheaper solution is to build tail tracks at Flushing Main St with crossovers so that trains can enter the terminal at higher speed. The more practical solution is to extend the  further out to a modern two-track terminal with tail tracks and relieve the bus transfers at Main St.

This makes sense; honestly, when the El starts to need renovation on the  we should really just replace it with a four-track subway out to at least Bell Blvd

[Around the Horn]

Putting this here because it's related to proposals/ideas

It's mostly Philly related stuff, since he worked on the Regional Rail "R number" system (God how I miss that now), which BTW was never fully implemented, but there's some good general transit theory stuff there, for lack of a better phrase

https://repository.upenn.edu/do/search/?q=vuchic&start=0&context=19929&facet=

(Some of the documents refer to a "Plan for SEPTA's Metrorail System". This hasn't been uploaded by Penn but you can find it here [http://phillyideas.com/SEPTA2/SEPTA-Metrorail-1993.pdf ])

[BreeddekalbL]

Would it be worth it for them do remove the fra designation from the Sir to reduce costs and then prepare for an eventuality of them intergrating the line with a future subway extension?

Edited March 4, 2019 by BreeddekalbL

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Probably not, unless there’s some sort of concrete plans to do so. Right now, there isn’t and there doesn’t seem to be any inclination on the part of the MTA, the State, the City and to link the Staten Island Rapid Transit to the rest of the subway. There’s still many Staten Islanders who don’t want to be linked to the subway (guys, we’re not in the 1970s or 80s anymore!).

[Union Tpke]

10 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Would it be worth it for them do remove the fra designation from the Sir to reduce costs and then prepare for an eventuality of them intergrating the line with a future subway extension?

It hasn't had the FRA designation since 1988. This misconception drives me nuts.

[Union Tpke]

16 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

This is intended to fix the issue at Flushing, with passengers unable to enter because so many people are coming out, backing up into the mezzanine. C/Rs often can't get into their cabs as a result. This is meant to separate the two flows.

@RR503 What do you think about my suggestion?

[BreeddekalbL]

13 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

It hasn't had the FRA designation since 1988. This misconception drives me nuts.

your kidding

[BreeddekalbL]

In exchange for an or extension to LGA i propose moving the astoria el underground

[LGA Link N Train]

26 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

In exchange for an or extension to LGA i propose moving the astoria el underground

You could, but that requires underpinning QBL which sounds like a tough job to me. Also, if you were to do this, I’d make it 4 tracks or so to give the  a better Terminal. Preferably, I wouldn’t waste any resources on burying an EL, especially when it’s currently being modernized/upgraded. 

[Union Tpke]

53 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

your kidding

Nope.

[BreeddekalbL]

56 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

You could, but that requires underpinning QBL which sounds like a tough job to me. Also, if you were to do this, I’d make it 4 tracks or so to give the  a better Terminal. Preferably, I wouldn’t waste any resources on burying an EL, especially when it’s currently being modernized/upgraded. 

wont they be underpinning SAS if it reaches phase 3 and 4?

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

wont they be underpinning SAS if it reaches phase 3 and 4?

Yes

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 What do you think about my suggestion?

I think it's a good one. Can't say I'm completely convinced that we need to go full spanish solution given that the eastwards extension would innately reduce crowding, but better platform circulation that Main for sure. 

4 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

wont they be underpinning SAS if it reaches phase 3 and 4?

There is literally zero reason for us to spend our (very limited) subway expansion capital on burying a perfectly functional existing line.