Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

7 hours ago, mrsman said:

Thank you for the kind words, T to Dyre.  If I'm understanding you correctly, your preference is  to Sea Beach,  to West End,  2nd Ave to Brighton express, and  2nd Ave to Brighton local.  A de-interlining of DeKalb, just in the reverse of my Option 2 suggestion with a 6th Ave - 4th Ave exp and Broadway exp - Brighton.  That should be fine.

As far as the local trains go, I believe you're suggesting  from Astoria to Whitehall,  from Forest HIlls to Bay Ridge, and  from Jamaica to Bay Ridge.  If that's the case, the qn is whether this is enough service for Astoria?  Is it OK to still bring QB trains onto the Broadway BMT?  Can Bay Ridge turn back two lines worth of trains,  and  ?  Would the above work better with the elimination of , increasing  service (limited to the turning capacity of Whitehall) and increasing  service to better serve Bay Ridge?

FIguring out what to do with the local trains is the hardest aspect of DeKalb deinterlining.  Ideally, we'd just route all  trains from Astoria to Bay RIdge and be done, but without  a proper yard we have to think out of the box.  

I'm glad that you acknowledge the main problem of the N shifting from local to express.  That should simply not be done.  Broadway should have two locals and two expresses and the two should not intermingle.

I had done a thorough analysis of the DeKalb problem at reddit: 

 

 

My preference is for the  to go from Astoria to Bay Ridge and to use 38th Street in Brooklyn for the yard, while running the  from Forest Hills to Whitehall. Though I’m also okay with calling the Astoria-Bay Ridge service  and the Forest Hills service . 

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

With you up to the  extension. I totally agree that Bay Ridge needs more service, but unless we can demonstrate that  would, say, reduce  crowding significantly, I'd prefer a conflict-eliminating  extension rather than a conflict-creating . 

One interesting suggestion I've seen is using the switch provisions south of 36th to route express trains to Bay Ridge, with all locals to West End. You'd get rid of 4th Express-Bridge service to West End, but would make up for the loss in massively increased service frequencies and a simpler, less geometrically fraught merge at 36 St. This'd also provide you with the frequency required to do some sort of West End express from 9th to Bay Parkway, provided you work out the scheduling and switch issues there (don't want another Parkchester!). 

Ok, maybe we don’t have to do the  if the Astoria  (or ) service runs frequently enough that one service is sufficient. The current  certainly doesn’t seem to be.

If you redid the 36th junction to reroute locals onto West End, then what would replace the current Bay Ridge-bound local service at 45th and 53rd?

Edited January 1, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

T to Dyre Ave is correct.  In order to provide service to 45th and 53rd, you need to have switches between the local and express tracks south of where West End branches off and north of 45th.  Those switches are not currently present and would require some new constrution. Alternatively, the local tracks south of 36th can simply be closed and a platform extension created on 45th and 53rd to extend the platform to the current express tracks.  All Bay Ridge and Sea Beach trains will then stop at those two stations before going express at 36th.*

Not that certain smaller construction projects aren't justified, but given time and costs for the MTA to do anything, I believe one must first analyze what can be done without construction and then add in construction projects as justified to make the service even better.

If those switches were present, then yes, you could route all 6 Ave trains to 4th Ave express to service Bay Ridge and Sea Beach.  Route all Broadway expresses from 2nd Ave to Brighton local and express.  Route all Broadway locals from Astoria to West End.  Each line would have nearly full capacity of service on their Midtown segments, although Broadway expresses would be limited to the turning capacity of 2nd Ave / 96 St until that line gets extended and branches to two terminals.

As I keep thinking about this, I am convinced that the only way to deinterline both DeKalb and 4 Av/36 St without a significant service cut would require one of the lines that currently has direct access to the Manhattan Bridge (Brighton, West End, Sea Beach) to lose such access and be forced into the Montague tunnel.  And I believe part of the theory is that is OK to force all West End customers to the tunnel, because they will get more consistent service, more trains, less intermingling, and they can manage such transferring with a cross-platform at 4 Av/36 st.

While this does add time to the trip of a West End customer, it can still be viewed as a positive given better service that would result.  

And I think that is the general "theory" of deinterlining.  We may eliminate direct access for a lot of people, but the untangling can result in an overall better experience - more frequency and capacity.

 

* Similar considerations are contemplated in some deinterlining plans that force all 8th Ave locals to Queens and all 8th Ave expresses to CPW.  The upper level platforms at 50th St for the C train would no longer have any train service.  Yet, it is a busy station and there should be a provision for trains from CPW to stop there.  the addition of switches (or platform extensions) can provide that all of the 8th Ave expresses will also be able to stop at 50th Street.  

[Wallyhorse]

On 12/23/2019 at 10:27 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

I have incorporated both into my revised future NYC subway plans, especially the  extension. However, I made the  extension as a short extension from 8th Avenue to as far as 72nd Street and Amsterdam Avenue, with a provision for an extension to Queens) to allow for better service on the West Side of Manhattan, alleviating crowds on West Side trains (hopefully). 
 

I also have this line incorporated into my plans for the Nassau-8th Avenue connections, which have been revised for more optimal operations.

My extension would be similar to 72nd-Amsterdam BUT would have the provisions to continue as an Amsterdam Avenue Subway, possibly first to 86th or 96th Street (and if 96th with a passageway to the at 96th as well) and then eventually all the way up Amsterdam Avenue.  This would be three tracks all the way to have a peak-direction express or short-turn terminal spots. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

T to Dyre Ave is correct.  In order to provide service to 45th and 53rd, you need to have switches between the local and express tracks south of where West End branches off and north of 45th.  Those switches are not currently present and would require some new constrution. Alternatively, the local tracks south of 36th can simply be closed and a platform extension created on 45th and 53rd to extend the platform to the current express tracks.  All Bay Ridge and Sea Beach trains will then stop at those two stations before going express at 36th.*

Not that certain smaller construction projects aren't justified, but given time and costs for the MTA to do anything, I believe one must first analyze what can be done without construction and then add in construction projects as justified to make the service even better.

If those switches were present, then yes, you could route all 6 Ave trains to 4th Ave express to service Bay Ridge and Sea Beach.  Route all Broadway expresses from 2nd Ave to Brighton local and express.  Route all Broadway locals from Astoria to West End.  Each line would have nearly full capacity of service on their Midtown segments, although Broadway expresses would be limited to the turning capacity of 2nd Ave / 96 St until that line gets extended and branches to two terminals.

As I keep thinking about this, I am convinced that the only way to deinterline both DeKalb and 4 Av/36 St without a significant service cut would require one of the lines that currently has direct access to the Manhattan Bridge (Brighton, West End, Sea Beach) to lose such access and be forced into the Montague tunnel.  And I believe part of the theory is that is OK to force all West End customers to the tunnel, because they will get more consistent service, more trains, less intermingling, and they can manage such transferring with a cross-platform at 4 Av/36 st.

While this does add time to the trip of a West End customer, it can still be viewed as a positive given better service that would result.  

And I think that is the general "theory" of deinterlining.  We may eliminate direct access for a lot of people, but the untangling can result in an overall better experience - more frequency and capacity.

 

* Similar considerations are contemplated in some deinterlining plans that force all 8th Ave locals to Queens and all 8th Ave expresses to CPW.  The upper level platforms at 50th St for the C train would no longer have any train service.  Yet, it is a busy station and there should be a provision for trains from CPW to stop there.  the addition of switches (or platform extensions) can provide that all of the 8th Ave expresses will also be able to stop at 50th Street.  

West End line riders will fight tooth and nail over the prospect of rerouting their service to the Montague Tunnel. Even during the period when the West End train was the only one that could access Stillwell Ave due to terminal reconstruction - 2002-04 - the  ran via the tunnel only during late nights and weekends. This is also why the  was cut in 2010. There was very little demand for a direct West End-Montague train. And it’s not really necessary to do one if DeKalb is deinterlined. The  is currently on its own tracks in Brooklyn, except during late nights when both the  and  also run local in Brooklyn. That doesn’t need to change if the  is rerouted to Astoria. 38th Street Yard in Brooklyn can be used as a revenue service storage yard for the  with deadheading to Coney Island Yard for maintenance. This is similar to how the  has Fresh Pond Yard for storage and deadheads to East New York Yard for maintenance.

[RR503]

On 1/1/2020 at 12:10 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If you redid the 36th junction to reroute locals onto West End, then what would replace the current Bay Ridge-bound local service at 45th and 53rd?

As mentioned in my post, there are provisions that exist for switches south of 36 — you’d use that.

5 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

West End line riders will fight tooth and nail over the prospect of rerouting their service to the Montague Tunnel. Even during the period when the West End train was the only one that could access Stillwell Ave due to terminal reconstruction - 2002-04 - the  ran via the tunnel only during late nights and weekends. This is also why the  was cut in 2010. There was very little demand for a direct West End-Montague train. And it’s not really necessary to do one if DeKalb is deinterlined. The  is currently on its own tracks in Brooklyn, except during late nights when both the  and  also run local in Brooklyn. That doesn’t need to change if the  is rerouted to Astoria. 38th Street Yard in Brooklyn can be used as a revenue service storage yard for the  with deadheading to Coney Island Yard for maintenance. This is similar to how the  has Fresh Pond Yard for storage and deadheads to East New York Yard for maintenance.

38th would certainly help facilitate an Astoria-Bay Ridge , but the merge interaction creates between yard runs and s presents a non trivial constraint in service. Whether or not that justifies a different service pattern is somewhat a subjective question given our inability to quantify the issue, but it’s definitely worth considering. Also would be interested to know how much space we could get in 38th, what with MOW’s presence always expanding. 

West End riders would certainly not like losing direct Bridge access, but this isn’t something where they just lose. 2-3 minute peak headways would be appreciated by riders, as would the potential for express service. Part of the reason that this plan has some merit is because you can create this very tradeoff: they lose bridge access, but they gain something else. And as noted above, this is just adding a cross platform transfer. 

[beelinefan]

A proposal to get the  away from Lefferts

The  will take over the Lefferts from the .  It will operate full time, the northern terminal will be the 's current Bronx terminal.  Service will operate as it does now in the Bronx and Manhattan with local service on 6th ave late nights.  It will operate via the  from Broadway Lafayette to Jay st, then via the  making all  stops until Euclid then skips Grant  80th and 88th then makes all stops from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts.   service in Brooklyn will be replaced by an extended .  As part of this proposal the  will be at Concourse yard with the  going to Coney Island

Edited January 3, 2020 by beelinefan

[Wallyhorse]

5 minutes ago, beelinefan said:

A proposal to get the  away from Lefferts

The  will take over the Lefferts from the .  It will operate full time, the northern terminal will be the 's current Bronx terminal.  Service will operate as it does now in the Bronx and Manhattan with local service on 6th ave late nights.  It will operate via the  from Broadway Lafayette to Jay st, then via the  making all  stops until Euclid then skips Grant  80th and 88th then makes all stops from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts.   service in Brooklyn will be replaced by an extended .  As part of this proposal the  will be at Concourse yard with the  going to Coney Island

And you run into the same problem that my long-ago suggestion of having the become the Culver Express and run to Coney Island to replace the there: Broadway-Lafayette would have to handle three lines and in this case, stations north of there as far north as 34th would because the would have to go to the local tracks either between 34th and 42nd OR at West 4th southbound and from such northbound.  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

As mentioned in my post, there are provisions that exist for switches south of 36 — you’d use that.

38th would certainly help facilitate an Astoria-Bay Ridge , but the merge interaction creates between yard runs and s presents a non trivial constraint in service. Whether or not that justifies a different service pattern is somewhat a subjective question given our inability to quantify the issue, but it’s definitely worth considering. Also would be interested to know how much space we could get in 38th, what with MOW’s presence always expanding. 

West End riders would certainly not like losing direct Bridge access, but this isn’t something where they just lose. 2-3 minute peak headways would be appreciated by riders, as would the potential for express service. Part of the reason that this plan has some merit is because you can create this very tradeoff: they lose bridge access, but they gain something else. And as noted above, this is just adding a cross platform transfer. 

MOW equipment should be dispersed in yards around the system to make it easier to stage them and get them to and from their work assignments quicker. The current staging of work trains on the 4th Avenue express tracks for weeknight projects is completely wrecking service on that line. There has to be a better way to do this.

Good point about the pre-existing provisions south of 36th and the ability to increase service if West End is reconfigured to be the 4th Avenue local service. 

As for using 38th for revenue  storage, would it be possible to build a connecting track from the northbound 4th Ave local track to southbound  track to allow out-of-service  trains to access 38th without all the merging and reversing that would be required to do it now? I imagine the MTA’s long-term plans to make 38th a revenue yard for SAS would include something like this (I hope). 

[mrsman]

Politically, and probably operationally, it is preferable to tie the Bay ridge line to the Montague tunnel and retain other lines' access to the Bridge.  

So if is possible to construct improvements to the 38th St yard (including connections to the 4th Ave main that reduce interference with West End service), then a consistent Bay Ridge-Astoria service can be provided and that would go a long way to deinterlining Broadway and DeKalb.

I just hope that it can be done in the short term, since so much of this interlining is causing tremendous delays along the Broadway lines.

[JeremiahC99]

On the subject of the  train and Bay Ridge-Astoria service, would another short term solution be to build a small storage yard south of the 95th Street station? It could be 10 tracks with the two middle tracks having provisions for an extension south to 101st Street or (if possible) Staten Island? This could go along with the conversion of the 36th-38th Street Yard and allow for efficient train storage for the morning and evening rush.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 12/31/2019 at 4:02 AM, Infamous85 said:

Why wouldn’t expanded subway service in Queens be useful? I think Northern Blvd would make a good east-west corridor, even if it isn’t served by the , but my reasoning was that the  ends at Court Square, it can stand to go a bit further. But you’re right, more people will be traveling to Manhattan than Brooklyn.

 

 

It’d connect LaGuardia with Manhattan and the subway system, wouldn’t that be a good thing? I mean you could extend the loud outdoor  to LaGuardia, I was trying to avoid that. And as far as space, make more space. CBTC, deinterlining, or shift something around some other way. Or send the  (or the ) to LaGuardia instead of down Queens Boulevard.

 

We need expansion to help reduce the reliance on cars. Once upon a time we had lines running out over farmland, it helped induce demand, Queens by itself is the 4th most populated city in the U.S., Brooklyn is the 3rd, the demand for expansion into subway deserts (most of Queens) is there. I mean, financially, Springfield Blvd would obviously make more sense, but I don’t see a Little Neck Pkwy extension being entirely useless. Quite a few lines also approach city limits.

 

 

In a perfect world we could have both, I think AirTrain LGA to Willets Point is quite dumb and little more than a pet project for Cuomo, however a connection to Jamaica would open it up to a much much larger passenger base, making the project (which is being built) more worthwhile. People traveling to LGA via the AirTrain from Jamaica and people traveling to LGA via the NorthernBlvd/LGA subway would mainly be coming from different directions.

LGA is just too centrally located within NYC to not have a subway connection, it’s just asinine that this isn’t a thing already in existence.

Definitely agree it’s asinine that we don’t have a subway connection to LaGuardia. I mean, Reagan National Airport has been connected to DC by Metro since 1977! Even runs past the Pentagon to get there. But then again this is New York, where the needs of the few or the one always outweigh the needs of the many, 😔! This is why the Astoria Line didn’t get extended to LGA and everyone is afraid to try again after NIMBY’s shot it down 25 years ago. And most of the route past the ConEd plant is populated by industrial buildings and surface parking lots. Apparently in this city, parking lots have political connections!

But extending either the  or  to LaGuardia may create problems on Queens Blvd. The QB locals are busy to the extent that they feed the  and  at Roosevelt. And they do get quite busy between 63rd Drive and Roosevelt. If you peel off a local, it would leave the busiest QB local stops with only one service. You may be able to mitigate that by converting Woodhaven Blvd into an express station (which should have been done long ago anyway!) You could possibly branch it off near the Queens Center Mall then go up Junction Blvd towards the airport, but that’s going to be a relatively long run first down Junction, then local down QB. And risks funneling more passengers onto the  at Roosevelt.

On 12/31/2019 at 8:52 AM, Shore El Express said:

reuse of the North Shore Branch on Staten Island

A train extension to Yonkers via Riverdale Avenue

I mean, if NYC and Westchester pols had just a bit more foresight, we might have been able include the Getty Square branch of the long-gone New York Central Putnam Line. Here’s a decent map of what it looked like - https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/soyosunset/walking-tour-of-old-getty-square-rail-line-nov-12-t5725.html 

Unfortunately, that ship sailed at least 70 years ago. It was abandoned in 1943, and development sprouted up on and around it not long after. But if we still had it, perhaps it could have been connected to the underutilized Concourse Line via Mosholu Parkway and through Van Cortlandt Park, giving Concourse two full time services. So much for that!

Edited January 4, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Shore El Express]

A cool extension would be converting most of the A division lines to B division standards. If we want a truly modern system then we shouldn't have to deal with subway cars that are uncomfortably narrow. On elevated structures, this wouldn't be that hard. Underground, is a different story. No idea how to pull that off lol

[Lex]

1 hour ago, Shore El Express said:

A cool extension would be converting most of the A division lines to B division standards. If we want a truly modern system then we shouldn't have to deal with subway cars that are uncomfortably narrow. On elevated structures, this wouldn't be that hard. Underground, is a different story. No idea how to pull that off lol

That's not an extension.

[Shore El Express]

6 minutes ago, Lex said:

That's not an extension.

*proposal

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, Shore El Express said:

A cool extension would be converting most of the A division lines to B division standards. If we want a truly modern system then we shouldn't have to deal with subway cars that are uncomfortably narrow. On elevated structures, this wouldn't be that hard. Underground, is a different story. No idea how to pull that off lol

Underground would be super-expensive, if not impossible, to convert from A to B standards. Better to use that money to build new lines. I’ve previously suggested the possibility of having 60-foot A Division subway cars with four entry doors per side, like their B Division counterparts, but I’ll bet there are sections of the A Division that probably can’t accommodate even that. 

[LGA Link N Train]

34 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Underground would be super-expensive, if not impossible, to convert from A to B standards. Better to use that money to build new lines. I’ve previously suggested the possibility of having 60-foot A Division subway cars with four entry doors per side, like their B Division counterparts, but I’ll bet there are sections of the A Division that probably can’t accommodate even that. 

Maybe a possibility of extending The A Division to 11-12 cars (somewhat like the  would be an interesting idea?

[Lex]

31 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Maybe a possibility of extending The A Division to 11-12 cars (somewhat like the  would be an interesting idea?

I see that one having an easier time coming to fruition.

That said, we'd need substantial work to accommodate anything of the sort. The earliest I can see that happening is in 2030, which will be around the time replacements for the R142/As will be in the works. (Many of the R188 C cars could probably simply be shuffled into the 5-car sets, making them 6-car sets until they're actually ready to retire.)

I'd go with 12-car trains both for the even number of cars and to have a notably easier time accommodating passengers (even the  has difficulty while using 11 cars).

[Eric B]

Or an idea of connecting the Dual Contracts portions of the IRT with a new line built under the lower Lexington, from where the Dual Contracts Clark St. line turns from William St. onto Beekman; it wold instead continue straight, to under the City Hall station, then under the Lexington line to Grand Central, where it would pick up the Dual Contracts uppe (true) Lexington line, and with it, the Jerome and Pelham lines.

The original 1904 line would be restored, crossing over at 42nd, and continuing uptown to the Broadway, Lenox and WPR lines.  (And probably just be cut off at Nevins or Atlantic Ave, where the converted line would pick up the rest of Brooklyn. So in Manhattan, we'd have a nice, through east-west side route). The Dual Contracts 7th Ave. line would probably just be cut off at Times Sq. 
So the only "A Div" left would be the single 1904 line, 242-Atlantic, with the Lenox and WPR/Dyre branches (and if they were to do all of that, they could also pick up the upper WPR and Dyre with a SAS extension).

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/5/2020 at 12:27 PM, Eric B said:

Or an idea of connecting the Dual Contracts portions of the IRT with a new line built under the lower Lexington, from where the Dual Contracts Clark St. line turns from William St. onto Beekman; it wold instead continue straight, to under the City Hall station, then under the Lexington line to Grand Central, where it would pick up the Dual Contracts uppe (true) Lexington line, and with it, the Jerome and Pelham lines.

The original 1904 line would be restored, crossing over at 42nd, and continuing uptown to the Broadway, Lenox and WPR lines.  (And probably just be cut off at Nevins or Atlantic Ave, where the converted line would pick up the rest of Brooklyn. So in Manhattan, we'd have a nice, through east-west side route). The Dual Contracts 7th Ave. line would probably just be cut off at Times Sq. 
So the only "A Div" left would be the single 1904 line, 242-Atlantic, with the Lenox and WPR/Dyre branches (and if they were to do all of that, they could also pick up the upper WPR and Dyre with a SAS extension).

 

Also the Flushing Line would still be A Division, as the Steinway Tubes and the 42nd Street (at least up to Grand Central) and LIC subways on both sides of the tubes were built pre-Dual Contracts as well. 

Yes, you’ve got a nice through east-west side line, like we did from 1904 to 1918, when the current IRT “H” was implemented. But why have the “Lower Lexington” Line duplicate the existing service one level up? Maybe just have the “Dual Contracts” subway continue straight down Lexington Ave/Irving Place to Union Square, where it could then run briefly under the existing line for connections at 14th and Astor Place. From there, the new line could then run down Bowery to Park Row, then continue down Park Row past Pace University to intercept the existing  subway at William Street. 

But then once in Brooklyn, where would the new subway go to “capture” the outer, “Dual Contracts” IRT stations past Atlantic? And what about the remainder of the “Dual Contracts” IRT, i.e., the 7th Avenue Line below Times Square plus Park Place? I don’t really see the point in just cutting it off at Times Square. That would make it a glorified shuttle with rather low ridership. It should continue north of there perhaps jogging over to Columbus/Morningside or Amsterdam. And if we’ve already got the new “Lower Lex” trunk line going through the Clark Street Tunnel, then we can’t have the existing service via Park Place/Beekman going through there too. Because that would be a truly bad case of reverse-branching, where each of these new services would be forced to run less frequently than the current services do. And that wouldn’t be worth doing. 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

IMO, this seems like so much duplication that it doesn't seem worth it.  

The only section that would seem to make sense to convert would be the elevated portion of the 7.  Since it is busier than N, IMO it would have made sense to tie the Flushing line to the 60th St tunnel and the Astoria line to the Steinway Tunnels.  Alternatively, once can tie both the Astoria and the Flushing lines into the 60th St tunnels, but that would be a bit of a service cut.

The only other alternative would be to tie some of the other elevated lines as extensions of B division lines.  I know that some plans out there convert Dyre Ave as an extension of the future SAS.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Agreed. There would have to be a sizable amount of line duplication in order to turn the Dual Contract-sized tunnels on the A-Division into fully functional subway lines. That’s why it’s not really worth doing, especially for the  below Times Square and for the  past Atlantic. Truth be told, I’d much rather spend the money on doing new subway lines to parts of the City with no subway service that actually want it. 

As for whether or not it should have been Flushing that got converted to wider clearances, as a regular  line rider, I’d certainly welcome longer, wider subway cars with open arms. But if that were to ever happen, the Flushing Line would still need to be a (mostly, at the very least) self-contained line free of interlining. Having a Flushing Line sharing the 60th St Tunnel with a QB local service, like the current  setup would be a big no-no.

And had they chosen to reroute Astoria to the Steinway Tunnels over Flushing, they would have to had Astoria trains deadhead to Corona Yard, which would have had to be able to store and service both A and B Division trains.

Edited January 7, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Union Tpke]

28 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. There would have to be a sizable amount of line duplication in order to turn the Dual Contract-sized tunnels on the A-Division into fully functional subway lines. That’s why it’s not really worth doing, especially for the  below Times Square and for the  past Atlantic. Truth be told, I’d much rather spend the money on doing new subway lines to parts of the City with no subway service that actually want it. 

As for whether or not it should have been Flushing that got converted to wider clearances, as a regular  line rider, I’d certainly welcome longer, wider subway cars with open arms. But if that were to ever happen, the Flushing Line would still need to be a (mostly, at the very least) self-contained line free of interlining. Having a Flushing Line sharing the 60th St Tunnel with a QB local service, like the current  setup would be a big no-no.

And had they chosen to reroute Astoria to the Steinway Tunnels over Flushing, they would have to had Astoria trains deadhead to Corona Yard, which would have had to be able to store and service both A and B Division trains.

Yup. If you want to increase capacity, you could have 12-car trains, or before that, make use of existing capacity by deinterlining, resignaling, fixing bottlenecks, increasing station capacity, etc.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Yup. If you want to increase capacity, you could have 12-car trains, or before that, make use of existing capacity by deinterlining, resignaling, fixing bottlenecks, increasing station capacity, etc.

Agreed that we should exhaust all these options  - where applicable - first because station platform lengthening can be pretty expensive too, especially for underground island platform stations. And ordering new trailer cars compatible with the existing subway cars (for making 12-car trains) is no small task either.

[Caelestor]

13 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed that we should exhaust all these options  - where applicable - first because station platform lengthening can be pretty expensive too, especially for underground island platform stations. And ordering new trailer cars compatible with the existing subway cars (for making 12-car trains) is no small task either.

Station lengthening isn't as effective because there are just so many stations in the subway, even if it's only IRT division. Better signaling, select deinterlining, and better passenger distribution at chokepoints such as GCT would go a long way to achieving 30 tph, which is the practical limit of a heavily branched subway system.

[bobtehpanda]

 

On 1/5/2020 at 9:25 AM, Lex said:

I see that one having an easier time coming to fruition.

That said, we'd need substantial work to accommodate anything of the sort. The earliest I can see that happening is in 2030, which will be around the time replacements for the R142/As will be in the works. (Many of the R188 C cars could probably simply be shuffled into the 5-car sets, making them 6-car sets until they're actually ready to retire.)

I'd go with 12-car trains both for the even number of cars and to have a notably easier time accommodating passengers (even the  has difficulty while using 11 cars).

I don't know about this. Some stations would be challenging to extend; 34-HY was a massive pain in the ass to build and the bored tunnels don't make it very easy to extend past. Main St has a station entrance blocking its end of the tracks. Both terminals have switches that would need to be moved, and probably most other switches would need to be moved as well. QBP is tightly nestled between a curve and a flying junction of sorts. And this is just what I'm thinking of off the top of my head.

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. There would have to be a sizable amount of line duplication in order to turn the Dual Contract-sized tunnels on the A-Division into fully functional subway lines. That’s why it’s not really worth doing, especially for the  below Times Square and for the  past Atlantic. Truth be told, I’d much rather spend the money on doing new subway lines to parts of the City with no subway service that actually want it. 

As for whether or not it should have been Flushing that got converted to wider clearances, as a regular  line rider, I’d certainly welcome longer, wider subway cars with open arms. But if that were to ever happen, the Flushing Line would still need to be a (mostly, at the very least) self-contained line free of interlining. Having a Flushing Line sharing the 60th St Tunnel with a QB local service, like the current  setup would be a big no-no.

And had they chosen to reroute Astoria to the Steinway Tunnels over Flushing, they would have to had Astoria trains deadhead to Corona Yard, which would have had to be able to store and service both A and B Division trains.

Yeah, CBTC Steinway has more capacity than 60th St due to the interlining mess on Broadway and DeKalb. 

60th St really should've been four tracks (which was the point of 63rd), but if you're going to go to the trouble of building two new tunnels you'd be better off building a parallel line somewhere else to draw people away from the Flushing Line corridor in general, serve more people, etc.