Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jova42R]

15 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

What do you think would be the best service patterns and alignments/expansions for Queens

For Northern Queens:

Make a rail crossing at Randalls Island, and a tunnel at 79th. Connect 79th to Northern and Randalls to Ditmars.  extension to 125th/Bway via 21 St and 79 St Tun/2 Av/125 St.

 becomes the Northern Line

 becomes the Ditmars Exp

 becomes the Ditmars Local

 starts at 61st/Freedom and goes up the West Side to 79th, then via 79th crosstown to 79th Tunnel, then up 21st to Ditmars.

Ditmars Line ends in Flushing. The  goes to Bayside. The  goes to Whitestone. The  goes to Fresh Meadows (from Northern).  goes to Auburndale.

Mid-Queens:

Reactivate RBB via SUBWAY.  from JFK, then up Junction Bl to Northern, then Northern Exp to 79th Tunnel, then via the .

Reactivate Lower Montauk PARTIALLY:

E. Williamsburg to Jamaica Light Rail via Bushwick Branch and Lower Montauk. Starts at Montrose Av .

TriboroRX:

Bay Ridge to Port Morris, then split to Co-Op City and Riverdale. Runs DMUs.

 SE Queens Line. Laurelton - St Albans - S. Jamaica - Jamaica - Corona - joins , but terminates at Hanover Sq instead of 61st.

 

That’s roughly my plan.

thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local?

[KK 6 Ave Local]

5 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

For Northern Queens:

Make a rail crossing at Randalls Island, and a tunnel at 79th. Connect 79th to Northern and Randalls to Ditmars.  extension to 125th/Bway via 21 St and 79 St Tun/2 Av/125 St.

 becomes the Northern Line

 becomes the Ditmars Exp

 becomes the Ditmars Local

 starts at 61st/Freedom and goes up the West Side to 79th, then via 79th crosstown to 79th Tunnel, then up 21st to Ditmars.

Ditmars Line ends in Flushing. The  goes to Bayside. The  goes to Whitestone. The  goes to Fresh Meadows (from Northern).  goes to Auburndale.

Mid-Queens:

Reactivate RBB via SUBWAY.  from JFK, then up Junction Bl to Northern, then Northern Exp to 79th Tunnel, then via the .

Reactivate Lower Montauk PARTIALLY:

E. Williamsburg to Jamaica Light Rail via Bushwick Branch and Lower Montauk. Starts at Montrose Av .

TriboroRX:

Bay Ridge to Port Morris, then split to Co-Op City and Riverdale. Runs DMUs.

 SE Queens Line. Laurelton - St Albans - S. Jamaica - Jamaica - Corona - joins , but terminates at Hanover Sq instead of 61st.

 

That’s roughly my plan.

thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local?

I probably wouldn't prefer 2 tunnels, but the  should be a straight shot up 21st and then cross the tunnel at 125th.

[Jova42R]

Just now, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I probably wouldn't prefer 2 tunnels, but the  should be a straight shot up 21st and then cross the tunnel at 125th.

Tunnel at 125th?

[KK 6 Ave Local]

7 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Tunnel at 125th?

Oh you only said a rail crossing. My bad

[Jova42R]

Just now, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Oh you only said a rail crossing. My bad

This is what I meant:

2 2-track crossings - one a tunnel on 79 St, and one a bridge across Randalls Island

map here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nFHPcYFkO79XPvn-ZhsvsA20xq4FqjBR&usp=sharing

@Wallyhorse I included the 79 St-1 Av Station.

Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local @Wallyhorse @mrsman @Around the Horn?

 

[Jova42R]

@KK 6 Ave Local here is my proposed service plan:

• Routes:
  •  Hanover Sq - 2 Av - 79 St Tunnel - Northern - Fresh Meadows
  •  from brooklyn - 2 Av - Mid-Bronx - Throgs Neck
  •  61 St - West Side - 79 St Crosstown/Tunnel - 21 St - North Queens - Bayside
  •  Hanover Sq - 2 Av - Randalls Island - North Queens - Whitestone
  •  18th - Culver - Crosstown - 21 St - Randalls Island - 2 Av/125 St - 125 St/Bway
• Lines
  • 2 Av
    • Tunnel whole line
  • 125 St Crosstown
    • Tunnel whole line
  • Mid-Bronx
    • Viaduct 125th to 174th
    • Highway ROW 174th to Throgs Neck
  • West Side/79 St Crosstown/79 St Tunnel
    • Tunnel whole line
  • 21 St
    • Tunnel whole line
  • North Queens
    • Tunnel 31st to 32 Av, 32 Av to Clearview
    • Highway ROW 32 Av to Whitestone, Clearview to Bayside
  • Northern/Fresh Meadows
    • Tunnel 33 Rd to Flushing
    • Viaduct Flushing to Fresh Meadows
  • Randalls Island Crossing
    • Highway ROW 31st to Randalls Island
    • Bridge Randalls Island to 102 St-1 Av
    • Tunnel 102 St-1 Av to 96th or 106th
• Tracks:
  • 2 Av
    • Hanover to 63rd: 2 tracks
    • 63rd to 125th: 4 tracks
  • 125 St Crosstown
    • 2 tracks
  • Mid-Bronx
    • 125th to 174th: 2 tracks
    • 174th to Throgs Neck: 3 tracks (peak-direction  service runs express)
  • West Side/79 St Crosstown/79 St Tunnel
    • 2 tracks
  • 21 St
    • 2 tracks
  • North Queens
    • 21 St to Flushing: 4 tracks ( local,  express)
    • Flushing to Bayside: 2 tracks
    • Flushing to Whitestone: 2 tracks
  • Northern/Fresh Meadows
    • 2 tracks
  • Randalls Island Crossing
    • 2 tracks
• Fleet Assignments:
  •  R211, R179
  •  R160, R68, R46
  •  R68, R46
  •  R179, R211
  •  R160, R211
• TPH:
  • 15TPH
  • 15TPH, except rush, then 10TPH,  is 5TPH
  • 15TPH
  • 15TPH
  • 10TPH

Thoughts?

[R32-DTrain]

On a different topic, how much would a extension to 261 St cost? Would it be wanted?

@KK 6 Ave Local @Around the Horn @Jova42R Thoughts?

Edited March 22, 2020 by R32-DTrain

[KK 6 Ave Local]

1 minute ago, R32-DTrain said:

On a different topic, how much would a extension to 261 St cost? Would it be wanted?

@KK 6 Ave Local @Around the Horn @Jova42R Thoughts?

I don't think the ridership would be anywhere near high enough. I've been there and it's probably just best to take the 

[Jova42R]

Here is the revised and finalized Cross City Line Map!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=179231QrKel3iz9fE1Cl8iRE_JpU5hlso&usp=sharing

I came up with TPH and fleet assignments as well:

• TPH
  • Rockaway Line:
    • 2TPH non-rush, 6TPH rush
  • West Side Line:
    • 2TPH non-rush, 4TPH rush
  • Central Line:
    • 3TPH all times
  • Triboro Line:
    • 8TPH all times, 4TPH on each Bronx Branch.
• Fleet:
  • Rockaway Line:
    • Stadler FLIRT (electro-diesel multiple unit)
  • West Side Line:
    • Stadler FLIRT (electro-diesel multiple unit)
  • Central Line:
    • Nippon Sharyo DMU (diesel multiple unit)
  • Triboro Line and Branches:
    • Nippon Sharyo DMU (diesel multiple unit)

Edited March 22, 2020 by Jova42R

[RR503]

21 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

As for why I didn’t add the  to West End on my map, it’s mainly due to the fact (and I remember this from a previous discussion) that West End ridership is in a higher demand for Express Service as opposed to Sea Beach. I’m not sure if that argument alone can suffice not swapping the  and  or if ridership demographics changed since, but that’s my notion. Don’t know why but your  and  swap made me think of the Canal Flip for some reason...

Yes, West End loves express. But this gets you yard access for the  and doubles their frequency or allows express. I'd say that's a viable trade-off, no? 

22 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

As For not adding the  to 18th Extension. Even though I said “I didn’t feel like [adding] it”, I wasn’t trying to make any arguments there, I just simply did not want to add it into my map. I’ll admit that a  extension to 18th would be nice though, but at that point, why not run it to Kings Highway and Expand Culver Express Service? 

Because Stillwell can't handle that many s. Absent some rebuild plan, you need KH as a relief for s, which forces the  to 18 or Church. Of those two, I'd take 18th with the equivocation that at tph >10 you should split between the two terminals as you really don't want to be running a single pocket at those frequencies. 

22 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The main reason for the short turn was to avoid congesting the Terminal at Jamaica Center. This also put me under the notion that the  between Broadway Junction and Jamaica Center would need a maximum of 12 TPH. I was also trying to go for some type of Terminal Operation similar to Parkchester on the . But since my map includes the upgrade of fixing that terminal (which the interlockings shouldn’t even be that far from the platforms anyways). I guess I could get rid of the Short Turn plan I had with  trains.

Ah, I see. That makes sense, though you could easily use Crescent or 111 St to short turn. Much less pretty of an operation, but doable enough. I see on your map that you moved the crossovers on the UL at Parsons -- why not do the LL too? 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Wasn't there something the MTA did about a new line in Queens or something? There was an image IIRC?

[JeremiahC99]

24 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Because Stillwell can't handle that many s. Absent some rebuild plan, you need KH as a relief for s, which forces the  to 18 or Church. Of those two, I'd take 18th with the equivocation that at tph >10 you should split between the two terminals as you really don't want to be running a single pocket at those frequencies. 

While an 18th Avenue  train sounds like a good idea, shouldn’t a policy change regarding fumigations and terminal operations be considered before extending the  to 18th Avenue? I feel like a little goes a long way here.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

On 3/17/2020 at 2:00 PM, RR503 said:

Now, for some fun. I finally made maps of my various deinterlining ideas. 

Today's service 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HHNa2XqlrDKPIKUzpTJcyQbSndtbs1cM

What I'd do without spending any capital $$$

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yZcwJfjcO1tfYuttqW2lUuatAFvIaxuz

What I'd do with capital $$$

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15z4fvc1cfxxtY_ZhUbFex3jxgT0dt3lm

The general principles here are to minimize merges/maximize capacity while trying to preserve a maximum of important connectivity (so we deinterline CPW, but not Essex or Bergen), and on the no-$$$ map to try to jump for deinterlinings that can largely be achieved through low-effort swaps, ie , , . Nothing on here will be all that unfamiliar to those of you who've been reading my ramblings for a while, but I thought it'd be nice to see it all on one map. 

Late repsonse but the next question here is how to properly tie SAS into it, and other service expansions.

[LGA Link N Train]

50 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes, West End loves express. But this gets you yard access for the  and doubles their frequency or allows express. I'd say that's a viable trade-off, no?  

I guess. I forgot that with 21-24 TPH on the , you could have a peak-Express service run along West End. It’s similar to a proposal I made 2 years ago with the  being West End Express. I will admit that with the merge being introduced with the  and  south of 36th, that would be tough to advertise well. 

50 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Because Stillwell can't handle that many s. Absent some rebuild plan, you need KH as a relief for s, which forces the  to 18 or Church. Of those two, I'd take 18th with the equivocation that at tph >10 you should split between the two terminals as you really don't want to be running a single pocket at those frequencies. 

Well my version of the  is running at 10 TPH (assuming that it’s length gets extended to 8 car trains) so sending it to 18th wouldn’t be so bad. But then what would happen to the layup tracks at Church Avenue, would they just remain vacant? 

50 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ah, I see. That makes sense, though you could easily use Crescent or 111 St to short turn. Much less pretty of an operation, but doable enough. I see on your map that you moved the crossovers on the UL at Parsons -- why not do the LL too? 

I prefer to not use Crescent Street because to me, it seems like an odd place to short turn trains, especially when you have a station like Woodhaven Blvd, which is a good transfer point between Subway and Buses. Particularly the  and the Q52/53+. As for 111th, I’m not sure why I didn’t think of short turning trains there. And just to clarify, I moved the crossovers on BOTH the upper and lower levels of JC/Parsons, that would bump things to 15 TPH. 
 

At that point, it would just be a matter of where or how to extend the .Initially, I’m sticking with a 1 stop extension to 168/Merrick, but I guess it ain’t out of the realm of possibility to swing it down Merrick.

[JeremiahC99]

16 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

At that point, it would just be a matter of where or how to extend the .Initially, I’m sticking with a 1 stop extension to 168/Merrick, but I guess it ain’t out of the realm of possibility to swing it down Merrick.

The original plan for Archer Avenue Lower Level called for extending it east to Hollis at 190th Street, providing a complete replacement for the Jamaica El from 127th Street to 168th Street.  As the tracks point in that direction, I have elected to include that extension in my own expansions plans. My original plans included stops at 168th Street, 177th Street, 183rd Street, and the terminal at Farmers Blvd to connect to the Hollis LIRR station, though I am unsure if the original program for action version listed specific version. If you’re going one stop to 168/Merrick, you might as well go all the way to Hollis like in the original plan. Just my suggestion.

[RR503]

52 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

While an 18th Avenue  train sounds like a good idea, shouldn’t a policy change regarding fumigations and terminal operations be considered before extending the  to 18th Avenue? I feel like a little goes a long way here.

Church certainly could use a little help on the policy side, but there are real infrastructure constraints there -- especially if NYCT ever lengthens Gs to >300'. The ramp down to the lower level is timed to 10mph, making the diverging move down to the layups S L O W. The ramps themselves are also quite short, so if you get downstairs and don't have a lineup into a relay, a long train will overhang onto the main. Once you're at the yard, things don't improve. Some aspiring engineer decided to mess with the switch config in the yard durin the resignalling, so instead of having this: 

We now have this:

Which reduces flexibility and forces the installation of annoyingly restrictive signalling. 

The relays themselves are also only 600' long and have AK signals on them, so if you're a long train you're gonna c r e e p in, reducing turning capacity. 

These problems, with the exceptions of the ramp and relay length are fixable, but would require a decent bit of investment. When the alternative is good for ops, good for the budget (because of the amount of time it takes to relay a train, doing the 8m + layover time trip to 18th would be approximately cost neutral but ridership-positive), and good politics....why not? 

23 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I guess. I forgot that with 21-24 TPH on the , you could have a peak-Express service run along West End. It’s similar to a proposal I made 2 years ago with the  being West End Express. I will admit that with the merge being introduced with the  and  south of 36th, that would be tough to advertise well. 

The 4th Avenue corridor has 3 branches and 2 tracks in each direction. You're stuck with a merge kinda however you want to slice the pie, so to speak. The move off of West End is nasty, so I'd imagine that new xovers south of 36 could only be an improvement.

24 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

While an 18th Avenue  train sounds like a good idea, shouldn’t a policy change regarding fumigations and terminal operations be considered before extending the  to 18th Avenue? I feel like a little goes a long way here.

Free yard space! Also overflow for whatever you can't turn at 18. 

25 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I prefer to not use Crescent Street because to me, it seems like an odd place to short turn trains, especially when you have a station like Woodhaven Blvd, which is a good transfer point between Subway and Buses. Particularly the  and the Q52/53+. As for 111th, I’m not sure why I didn’t think of short turning trains there. And just to clarify, I moved the crossovers on BOTH the upper and lower levels of JC/Parsons, that would bump things to 15 TPH. 

If you move the crossovers, you could definitely do more than 15tph. Both levels have tail tracks (albeit ones that are normally occupied), so with good switch geometry I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be looking at capacity figures that begin with a 2 or a 3.

[Union Tpke]

10 hours ago, RR503 said:

Church certainly could use a little help on the policy side, but there are real infrastructure constraints there -- especially if NYCT ever lengthens Gs to >300'. The ramp down to the lower level is timed to 10mph, making the diverging move down to the layups S L O W. The ramps themselves are also quite short, so if you get downstairs and don't have a lineup into a relay, a long train will overhang onto the main. Once you're at the yard, things don't improve. Some aspiring engineer decided to mess with the switch config in the yard durin the resignalling, so instead of having this: 

We now have this:

If you move the crossovers, you could definitely do more than 15tph. Both levels have tail tracks (albeit ones that are normally occupied), so with good switch geometry I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be looking at capacity figures that begin with a 2 or a 3.

Do you have any idea why this genius idea was approved? I have never gotten why they would needlessly eliminate flexibility at Church.

You would have to completely shut service to Jamaica Center and rebuild the tunnels since they are bored so I am not sure how feasible it would be to add new crossovers there.

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Do you have any idea why this genius idea was approved? I have never gotten why they would needlessly eliminate flexibility at Church.

When the signal contract went out for Culver, Church was never supposed to be a real terminal -- it was just a place to squirrel away  trains. When presented with the opportunity to save maintenance $$$ on 4 switches, then, the agency went for it....et voila. 

8 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

You would have to completely shut service to Jamaica Center and rebuild the tunnels since they are bored so I am not sure how feasible it would be to add new crossovers there.

I'm not either. But it's certainly something worth looking at IMO.

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

When the signal contract went out for Culver, Church was never supposed to be a real terminal -- it was just a place to squirrel away  trains. When presented with the opportunity to save maintenance $$$ on 4 switches, then, the agency went for it....et voila. 

I'm not either. But it's certainly something worth looking at IMO.

What, would you say, is the other most damaging removal of switches?

[Wallyhorse]

On 3/22/2020 at 1:03 PM, Jova42R said:

This is what I meant:

2 2-track crossings - one a tunnel on 79 St, and one a bridge across Randalls Island

map here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nFHPcYFkO79XPvn-ZhsvsA20xq4FqjBR&usp=sharing

@Wallyhorse I included the 79 St-1 Av Station.

Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local @Wallyhorse @mrsman @Around the Horn?

 

Excellent from what I could tell.  Station on 79th should be York-1st Avenue with exits on both avenues and if possible entry points as far east as between York and East End Avenues for people who live there.  Maybe this can be an eventual Rockaway Beach Branch.  

The north one to Randalls Island should go to a station at 124th Street and 1st-2nd Avenue and through a tunnel there to Randalls and then to LaGuardia and then from there maybe to Flushing. 

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, Wallyhorse said:

Excellent from what I could tell.  Station on 79th should be York-1st Avenue with exits on both avenues and if possible entry points as far east as between York and East End Avenues for people who live there.  Maybe this can be an eventual Rockaway Beach Branch.  

The north one to Randalls Island should go to a station at 124th Street and 1st-2nd Avenue and through a tunnel there to Randalls and then to LaGuardia and then from there maybe to Flushing. 

For Randalls, the station is at 102nd because the Wards Island Bridge would be converted into a rail bridge and used.

[Wallyhorse]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

For Randalls, the station is at 102nd because the Wards Island Bridge would be converted into a rail bridge and used.

Ah.  That makes sense. 

[LGA Link N Train]

12 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

You would have to completely shut service to Jamaica Center and rebuild the tunnels since they are bored so I am not sure how feasible it would be to add new crossovers there.

I wonder that myself as well. Gotta say it was short-sighted of the  to not change the plan of both interlocking location's. 

---------------------------------------------

On a somewhat related note, I wonder if the extension proposals for both Archer Avenue Lines from 1968 would still be a good idea. if proposed today. So I made a map showing those extensions attached with alternatives. This is something that I'm going to work on later on, so this is more or less of a rough draft:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15bCN4kZwPeAEU4mK8-Eb-c4uAWmwxMJ_&usp=sharing

[Jova42R]

what would be the best way to serve Riverside South with a subway? An extension of the proposed 79 St Tunnel? An extension of 2 Av? Light rail?

Thoughts @Wallyhorse @KK 6 Ave Local @LaGuardia Link N Tra

[KK 6 Ave Local]

A complete plan for Queens expansion

Northern Blvd could just be a 3-track extension of the  or SAS. 3 tracks to Main St, 2 to Francis Lewis Blvd

 extension to Whitestone

New light rail from Flushing/Main St  - Sutphin Blvd 

SAS would replace  in South Brooklyn rerouting them to Williamsburg.  would run to Metropolitan Ave,  would run to Broadway Junction

 would be extended from Metropolitan Ave to Utopia Pkway via LIE. North of the Bypass SAS would connect to it.

 extension to Rosedale

 extension to Springfield Blvd

 extension to LGA

 extension to Hollis

Three tracks on all of Jamaica Line, so <J> service would replace the  

 would run past Hanover Square to the Atlantic Branch and Jamaica