Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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

Pros of the 1968 (E) extension: 

  • the LIRR corridor already exists
  • an obvious yard site already exists (the area that was supposed to be the subway yard is now Railroad Park)

Cons:

  • you probably need a third or fourth track through St. Albans to replace lost LIRR capacity. The Far Rock, WH, LB, and Babylon branches during the peak operate more than 24TPH in the peak, which is more than the LIRR can handle on a single track pair.

For this reason I prefer Tfl-style takeover of the LB, WH, and Far Rock branches into a city tunnel from GCT to Atlantic, since that would also add capacity to get to Manhattan, which is the other problem with an (E) extension. 

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

Pros of the 1968 (J) extension

  • At the very least, should go to Merrick to connect with buses there

Cons 

  • Jamaica Av and the LIRR, the street network is not great, making it hard to run buses on or turn buses around
  • There isn't exactly room around the LIRR tracks
  • The (J) is slow AF, serves a secondary business district, and even if you were to replace it with 6th Av service it'd be indirect to Midtown, so riders will slam the first connecting services they get
  • Realistically speaking, for the most "bang for your buck" in terms of bus connections you need to go as far as 212, maybe even Merrick

For this reason I prefer an (F) extension. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Pros of the 1968 (E) extension: 

  • the LIRR corridor already exists
  • an obvious yard site already exists (the area that was supposed to be the subway yard is now Railroad Park)

Cons:

  • you probably need a third or fourth track through St. Albans to replace lost LIRR capacity. The Far Rock, WH, LB, and Babylon branches during the peak operate more than 24TPH in the peak, which is more than the LIRR can handle on a single track pair.

For this reason I prefer Tfl-style takeover of the LB, WH, and Far Rock branches into a city tunnel from GCT to Atlantic, since that would also add capacity to get to Manhattan, which is the other problem with an (E) extension. 

So I read a little bit about TFL and I’m a bit confused with it. Is it a rail service that happens to be a mix between Subway and Commuter rail services?

Also, even though I agree with the Con on this list, adding a 3rd Track on the St. Albans Branch does sound like something worth looking in to (even without the 1968 (E) extension). There are alternative (E) extensions that I listed in my map such as a Guy R Brewer Route and a Linden Blvd Route. What do you think of those?

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Pros of the 1968 (J) extension

  • At the very least, should go to Merrick to connect with buses there

That in my opinion, is the most practical solution for a (J) extension. 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Cons 

  • Jamaica Av and the LIRR, the street network is not great, making it hard to run buses on or turn buses around
  • There isn't exactly room around the LIRR tracks
  • The (J) is slow AF, serves a secondary business district, and even if you were to replace it with 6th Av service it'd be indirect to Midtown, so riders will slam the first connecting services they get
  • Realistically speaking, for the most "bang for your buck" in terms of bus connections you need to go as far as 212, maybe even Merrick

For this reason I prefer an (F) extension. 

Ima agree with you here as well. Because of the street grid, I don’t see a (J) extension to Hollis working and for the same reasons that you stated. Which is the street grid and the LIRR’s presence. Rebuilding Hollis Station on the LIRR would have more beneficial than extending the (J). How about swinging it down Merrick Blvd (which I show as alternate extension in my map)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 12:19 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@RR503

I managed to make a De-interlined NYC Subway map (with a time table) that included many of the talking points that you addressed with your masp. However, there were a couple of factors that I chose not to change. 145th Street in my opinion is a Junction that would need to stay interlined unless some SAS connection to the CPW Local Tracks were made. I also did not swap the (Q) and (R) south of 36th Street. While I agree with you on the fact that Yard Access would be important for the (R), swapping it wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. As for the (J), I included a few infrastructure upgrades along that line for a personal project that I'm working on. I also didn't include your (G) to 18th Avenue just cause I didn't feel like it. What do you think?:

Map - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H8_ABLoi9Ao9NT608MHifUUR-nbTw4uj&usp=sharing

Timetable - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUmnHPDF-T7_Em5mr93U4qbN7zxqiGpXYM8Xhd01RhE/edit?usp=sharing

I'm a little bit behind on my reading, but so far this seems like a great plan.  Well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I'm a little bit behind on my reading, but so far this seems like a great plan.  Well done.

Thanks. Though my plan is just showing a few things that I would do differently from @RR503’s plan. Which isn’t too much though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

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

Northern connects to a 79 St Tunnel, then connect to a 2 Av line, and a 2 track tunnel to Riverside South, serving the (V). The (V) then connects to a new Ditmars Line as a local.

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(7) extension to Whitestone

My Ditmars Express ((H)) goes there. A (7) would be ok, though.

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

New light rail from Flushing/Main St (L)(7) - Sutphin Blvd (E)(J)

Yes 100%!

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

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

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

Maybe run the (B) via Lower Montauk?

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(E) extension to Rosedale

Yes 100%!

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(F) extension to Springfield Blvd

My (T) (Northern Local) goes to Fresh Meadows via 73 Av, which would maybe tie in with an (F) extension.

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(N)(W) extension to LGA

My Ditmars Line serves the airport, but a midtown-airport link would be nice.

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(J) extension to Hollis

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

Yup 100%!

7 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

(T) would run past Hanover Square to the Atlantic Branch and Jamaica

No. IMO, it should run to South Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So I read a little bit about TFL and I’m a bit confused with it. Is it a rail service that happens to be a mix between Subway and Commuter rail services?

Definitely in the right direction. Id describe it as a Subway service that happens to have scattered Rail services. National Rail (a consortium of operators) handle most commuter rail services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question:

Why does the (MTA) have no trains in highway medians?

For ex: here's a proposal I made earlier:

(EE) Whitestone Local / Van Wyck Local / Lower Montauk Local / Bushwick Branch / S 4 St Tunnel / 2 Av Local / 125 St Crosstown

  • 8 Av
    • via I-678 Median
  • 14 Av
  • 20 Av
  • 25 Av
  • Linden Pl
  • Northern Blvd
  • Roosevelt Av walk to (7)<7>LIRR
  • Flushing Meadows Corona Park
  • LIE
  • Jewel Av
  • Union Tpke
  • Briarwood (E)(F)
  • Jamaica-Van Wyck (E)
    • via Lower Montauk Branch
  • Richmond Hill (Jamaica Av)
  • Kew Gardens South (Park Ln S)
  • Union Tpke
  • Atlas Park
  • Glendale (73 St)
  • Middle Village
  • Fresh Pond
    • via Bushwick Branch
  • Flushing Av
  • Metro Av
  • Varick Av
  • Montrose Av (L)
  • Hewes St (J)(M)
  • Marcy Av (J)(M)(Z)
  • Delancey-Essex (F)(J)(M)(Z)
    • all planned 2 Av/125 St Stops to:
  • 125 St/Bway (1)

Any insight (or thoughts on my proposal?) @KK 6 Ave Local @mrsman @40MntVrn @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Wallyhorse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So I read a little bit about TFL and I’m a bit confused with it. Is it a rail service that happens to be a mix between Subway and Commuter rail services?

The easiest way to think of it is to stop thinking about whatever arbitrary distinctions we've managed to come up with through a century of inertia in North American public transportation.

TfL in London has taken over some suburban rail services in London that were traditionally run by the national rail company and its successors. They plan to run 24+ TPH of these services through the center of London in a brand new tunnel that makes a bunch of stops in the city.

If you were to describe a subway to a five year old, you'd basically describe it as "metal boxes running through a tunnel very often, stopping at multiple places in the city". Regional Rail/Crossrail/RER/whatever is basically asking you to do this with a M7-sized box rather than a R160-sized one.

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Also, even though I agree with the Con on this list, adding a 3rd Track on the St. Albans Branch does sound like something worth looking in to (even without the 1968 (E) extension). There are alternative (E) extensions that I listed in my map such as a Guy R Brewer Route and a Linden Blvd Route. What do you think of those?

The problem with alternate (E) extensions, and most subway extensions, is that

  • tunnels cost a lot of money, with no particular advantages over existing grade-separated railways
  • els are going to be fiercely opposed, with no particular advantages over existing grade-separated railways
  • where do you put the yard? In NYS you can't just give up parkland for other uses, you have to find a substitute. This is also a problem with the LIRR ROW, but at least where the yard would go is quite self-evident.
3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

How about swinging it down Merrick Blvd (which I show as alternate extension in my map)? 

A 10-car, 600 ft (E) train at 15TPH, or a 12-car, 1020 ft LIRR-sized train at 24TPH, would be an absolute massive increase in capacity compared to existing bus services, and probably serve SE Queens well for over a generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Northern connects to a 79 St Tunnel, then connect to a 2 Av line, and a 2 track tunnel to Riverside South, serving the (V). The (V) then connects to a new Ditmars Line as a local.

Riverside South is in the West Side of Manhattan right? (L) could also be that service. I'm guessing your (V) terminates at 61st to connect with the proposed Metro North line, so that should be a station.

My Ditmars Express ((H)) goes there. A (7) would be ok, though.

Yes 100%!

Maybe run the (B) via Lower Montauk?

LIE is better for Central Queens. A good connection for Williamsburg residents and people along QBL would use it.

Yes 100%!

My (T) (Northern Local) goes to Fresh Meadows via 73 Av, which would maybe tie in with an (F) extension.

My Ditmars Line serves the airport, but a midtown-airport link would be nice.

Yup 100%!

No. IMO, it should run to South Brooklyn.

I said this with other SAS lines that could come from Northern/LIE/Bypass.

responses in red

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

A 10-car, 600 ft (E) train at 15TPH, or a 12-car, 1020 ft LIRR-sized train at 24TPH, would be an absolute massive increase in capacity compared to existing bus services, and probably serve SE Queens well for over a generation

So basically what you’re saying is to have the (E) and LIRR Run alongside each other between Jamaica and Laurelton. I can imagine having to do some compact construction of building 2 additional Tracks and a yard, dedicated for (E) Service up until Springfield Blvd where it would make the same stops as the LIRR at Locust Manor and South Jamaica (Linden/Guy R Brewer). Then the Parking Lots between Baisley Blvd and Farmers Blvd could be repurposed for something else.

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Riverside South is in the West Side of Manhattan right? (L) could also be that service. I'm guessing your (V) terminates at 61st to connect with the proposed Metro North line, so that should be a station.

Yes! Maybe make the (V) the 10 Av Subway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 12:19 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@RR503

I managed to make a De-interlined NYC Subway map (with a time table) that included many of the talking points that you addressed with your masp. However, there were a couple of factors that I chose not to change. 145th Street in my opinion is a Junction that would need to stay interlined unless some SAS connection to the CPW Local Tracks were made. I also did not swap the (Q) and (R) south of 36th Street. While I agree with you on the fact that Yard Access would be important for the (R), swapping it wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. As for the (J), I included a few infrastructure upgrades along that line for a personal project that I'm working on. I also didn't include your (G) to 18th Avenue just cause I didn't feel like it. What do you think?:

Map - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H8_ABLoi9Ao9NT608MHifUUR-nbTw4uj&usp=sharing

Timetable - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUmnHPDF-T7_Em5mr93U4qbN7zxqiGpXYM8Xhd01RhE/edit?usp=sharing

Looks pretty reasonable. Not sure if your post content reflects what the map is depicting, but the map certainly shows something logistically sensible. Whether commuters will raise their pitchforks over the loss of one-seat trips remains to be seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Looks pretty reasonable. Not sure if your post content reflects what the map is depicting, but the map certainly shows something logistically sensible. Whether commuters will raise their pitchforks over the loss of one-seat trips remains to be seen.

Some of the content in the map was changed after some recent discussion on it. I’d still rather build that Yard at Astoria though that should be saved as part of an extension project to LGA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So basically what you’re saying is to have the (E) and LIRR Run alongside each other between Jamaica and Laurelton. I can imagine having to do some compact construction of building 2 additional Tracks and a yard, dedicated for (E) Service up until Springfield Blvd where it would make the same stops as the LIRR at Locust Manor and South Jamaica (Linden/Guy R Brewer). Then the Parking Lots between Baisley Blvd and Farmers Blvd could be repurposed for something else.

Not even close. The keyword is "or".

Option A - (E) to Laurelton. Preferably, to Green Acres if you can get Nassau to agree to it, since a mall is a more logical transit hub.

  • 15TPH of 10-car, 60 ft cars to Laurelton.
  • All LIRR service moves to St. Albans branch. Third track is built to accommodate peak demand.

Option B - NYCT takeover of inner LIRR services. Preferred.

  • Long Beach, Far Rockaway, and West Hempstead branches in the south, and Port Washington, Rockaway Beach, and Hempstead in the north are taken over by NYCT as the C Division.
  • The C Division operates trains similar in size to the LIRR (12 car, 85 ft trains), but interior and door layout are more similar to that of a subway car.
  • To increase core capacity into Manhattan, a tunnel is built linking East Side Access to Atlantic. Together with East Side Access, this basically provides Queens, Brooklyn, and western Nassau with essentially 48TPH of services into Manhattan. (24TPH to Downtown via Midtown, 24TPH to Midtown via downtown)

heGs3TR.png

Either scenario features a yard in the current Railroad Park.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Not even close. The keyword is "or".

Option A - (E) to Laurelton. Preferably, to Green Acres if you can get Nassau to agree to it, since a mall is a more logical transit hub.

  • 15TPH of 10-car, 60 ft cars to Laurelton.
  • All LIRR service moves to St. Albans branch. Third track is built to accommodate peak demand.

Option B - NYCT takeover of inner LIRR services. Preferred.

  • Long Beach, Far Rockaway, and West Hempstead branches in the south, and Port Washington, Rockaway Beach, and Hempstead in the north are taken over by NYCT as the C Division.
  • The C Division operates trains similar in size to the LIRR (12 car, 85 ft trains), but interior and door layout are more similar to that of a subway car.
  • To increase core capacity into Manhattan, a tunnel is built linking East Side Access to Atlantic. Together with East Side Access, this basically provides Queens, Brooklyn, and western Nassau with essentially 48TPH of services into Manhattan. (24TPH to Downtown via Midtown, 24TPH to Midtown via downtown)

heGs3TR.png

Either scenario features a yard in the current Railroad Park.

Seems you can tie in a regional rail to that involving NJT and MNRR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Option A - (E) to Laurelton. Preferably, to Green Acres if you can get Nassau to agree to it, since a mall is a more logical transit hub.

  • 15TPH of 10-car, 60 ft cars to Laurelton.
  • All LIRR service moves to St. Albans branch. Third track is built to accommodate peak demand.

I personally don’t think that Nassau would agree with this, but an extension like this would be a valuable asset to Green Acres mall, maybe allowing it to become more accessible by foot traffic. I’m also under the notion that a 3rd Track on the St. Albans track should happen regardless. 
 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Option B - NYCT takeover of inner LIRR services. Preferred.

  • Long Beach, Far Rockaway, and West Hempstead branches in the south, and Port Washington, Rockaway Beach, and Hempstead in the north are taken over by NYCT as the C Division.

While I’m not a fan of this C Division, I can see where you’re going with this in addition to how doing this can benefit New York. I’m wondering how the (E) would be able to access the Atlantic Branch under option B. I’m assuming that portals would be built and the (E) would just merge into the the LIRR Tracks. Now terminating it at Springfield would be the hard part. I assume a 3rd or 4th track could be built with these “inner” tracks leading to the Yard. (Railroad Park) 

Quote
  • The C Division operates trains similar in size to the LIRR (12 car, 85 ft trains), but interior and door layout are more similar to that of a subway car.

And the yards these trains would use are Sunnyside, Railroad Park, Willets Point and Vanderbilt Yard, am I correct? 

Quote
  • To increase core capacity into Manhattan, a tunnel is built linking East Side Access to Atlantic. Together with East Side Access, this basically provides Queens, Brooklyn, and western Nassau with essentially 48TPH of services into Manhattan. (24TPH to Downtown via Midtown, 24TPH to Midtown via downtown)

Basically Crossrail. Since the C Division would be running on current LIRR Right of Ways. (And this new tunnel) would revenue trains be able to run on the same tracks as LIRR? 

 

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Either scenario features a yard in the current Railroad Park.

Now all that’s needed to be figured out is how the tracks (and maintenance facility) would be laid out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Not even close. The keyword is "or".

Option A - (E) to Laurelton. Preferably, to Green Acres if you can get Nassau to agree to it, since a mall is a more logical transit hub.

  • 15TPH of 10-car, 60 ft cars to Laurelton.
  • All LIRR service moves to St. Albans branch. Third track is built to accommodate peak demand.

Option B - NYCT takeover of inner LIRR services. Preferred.

  • Long Beach, Far Rockaway, and West Hempstead branches in the south, and Port Washington, Rockaway Beach, and Hempstead in the north are taken over by NYCT as the C Division.
  • The C Division operates trains similar in size to the LIRR (12 car, 85 ft trains), but interior and door layout are more similar to that of a subway car.
  • To increase core capacity into Manhattan, a tunnel is built linking East Side Access to Atlantic. Together with East Side Access, this basically provides Queens, Brooklyn, and western Nassau with essentially 48TPH of services into Manhattan. (24TPH to Downtown via Midtown, 24TPH to Midtown via downtown)

heGs3TR.png

Either scenario features a yard in the current Railroad Park.

@bobtehpanda @KK 6 Ave Local @LaGuardia Link N Tra @CenSin Here's my similar plan:

Cross City Line:

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

  • Tracks
    • Rockaway Line
      • 4 tracks Grand Central to Rego Park (LIRR mainline, Cross City Line trains only use outer 2)
      • 2 tracks Rego Park to South Ozone Park
      • 4 tracks South Ozone Park to JFK ((A) line, Cross City Line trains only use inner 2)
    • West Side Line
      • 2 tracks except at stations, at stations a 4-track layout with Cross City Line trains only using outer 2
    • Central Line
      • 2 tracks whole line
    • Triboro Line
      • 2 tracks whole line
    • West Bronx Branch
      • 2 tracks Port Morris to Mott Haven
      • 1 track Mott Haven to Highbridge
      • 3 tracks Highbridge to Spuyten Duyvil
      • 4 tracks Spuyten Duyvil to Riverdale
    • East Bronx Branch
      • 3 tracks whole branch
        • Co-op City Termination is one side track off the mainline.
  • Fleet
    • Rockaway Line
      • Stadler FLIRT3 (TexRail spec modified for third rail)
    • West Side Line
      • Stadler FLIRT3 (TexRail spec modified for third rail.)
    • Central Line
      • Nippon Sharyo DMU (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit spec)
    • Triboro Line and Bronx Branches
      • Nippon Sharyo DMU (Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit spec)
  • TPH
    • Rockaway Line
      • 2TPH non-rush
      • 4TPH rush
    • West Side Line
      • 2TPH non-rush
      • 4TPH rush
    • Central Line
      • 1TPH non-rush
      • 3TPH rush
    • Triboro Line
      • 4TPH non-rush
        • W Bronx: 2TPH
        • E Bronx: 2TPH
      • 6TPH rush
        • W Bronx: 3TPH
        • E Bronx: 3TPH

Thoughts?

Edited by Jova42R
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I’m wondering how the (E) would be able to access the Atlantic Branch under option B.

The (E) stays at Parsons/Archer due to the general lack of capacity to handle more people on QBL anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Basically Crossrail. Since the C Division would be running on current LIRR Right of Ways. (And this new tunnel) would revenue trains be able to run on the same tracks as LIRR?

Technologically, they would be compatible.

Operationally, there would be complete separation between Crossrail and LIRR. 

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Now all that’s needed to be figured out is how the tracks (and maintenance facility) would be laid out.

Fortunately, that was figured out in 1968.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bobtehpanda said:

Operationally, there would be complete separation between Crossrail and LIRR. 

To clarify, this might also require two additional tracks from Woodside to Jamaica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To effectively create expansion in Queens, there are a few corridors I'm interested in:

Northern Blvd: Good relief for the (7), Astoria Line extension could be a more cost-effective option, and Port Washington Branch could be recaptured

LIE: Effective for central Queens, very necessary

Jewel Ave: could be a short QBL extension

Union Tpke: Too close to (F) but could connect with something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The (E) stays at Parsons/Archer due to the general lack of capacity to handle more people on QBL anyways.

Alright. I mean, Deinterlining would help on that front. (E) Local to Jamaica-179th,  (F) to Jamaica-179th (Queens Village Extension later on) and 10 Car (M) Service to Jamaica Center.

53 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Technologically, they would be compatible.

Operationally, there would be complete separation between Crossrail and LIRR. 

Fortunately, that was figured out in 1968.

50 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To clarify, this might also require two additional tracks from Woodside to Jamaica.

I personally wouldn’t build 2 additional tracks to run between Rego Park and Jamaica given the lack of space (the way I envision it is having the inner mainline tracks dipping underground with the outer mainline tracks shifting inward to make room for this C Division Service), but I see where you’re getting at in terms of operation. Even without an Atlantic Term - GCT connector, would the C Division be feasible right now with the following routes?: 

Route 1 - Far Rockaway to Atlantic Terminal

Route 2 - Long Beach to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 3 - West Hempstead to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 4 - Port Washington to Grand Central

Route 5 - Howard Beach/JFK to Grand Central via RBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright. I mean, Deinterlining would help on that front. (E) Local to Jamaica-179th,  (F) to Jamaica-179th (Queens Village Extension later on) and 10 Car (M) Service to Jamaica Center.

I personally wouldn’t build 2 additional tracks to run between Rego Park and Jamaica given the lack of space (the way I envision it is having the inner mainline tracks dipping underground with the outer mainline tracks shifting inward to make room for this C Division Service), but I see where you’re getting at in terms of operation. Even without an Atlantic Term - GCT connector, would the C Division be feasible right now with the following routes?: 

Route 1 - Far Rockaway to Atlantic Terminal

Route 2 - Long Beach to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 3 - West Hempstead to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 4 - Port Washington to Grand Central

Route 5 - Howard Beach/JFK to Grand Central via RBB

It's less desirable. Without direct Manhattan service, preferably to Midtown, this would mostly just shove people into an (E)

Deinterlining does not increase the total trains you can run on four tracks of QBL. It definitely doesn't increase the total trains you can run on the two express tracks. It just rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic. The QBL express is at capacity, and riders are not interested in local trains all the way from Jamaica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's less desirable. Without direct Manhattan service, preferably to Midtown, this would mostly just shove people into an (E)

7 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Deinterlining does not increase the total trains you can run on four tracks of QBL. It definitely doesn't increase the total trains you can run on the two express tracks. It just rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic. The QBL express is at capacity, and riders are not interested in local trains all the way from Jamaica.

The last part about Jamaica Riders having no interest in local service is correct that. Though would it only be the (E) that riders would shove onto if what I’m suggesting happens to go in effect? What about the RBB line if it were converted into the Crossrail service that we’re talking about, which would also have direct access to Midtown (GCT)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

To effectively create expansion in Queens, there are a few corridors I'm interested in:

Northern Blvd: Good relief for the (7), Astoria Line extension could be a more cost-effective option, and Port Washington Branch could be recaptured

LIE: Effective for central Queens, very necessary

Jewel Ave: could be a short QBL extension

Union Tpke: Too close to (F) but could connect with something else

North Queens lines: (H) runs from Hanover Sq to 96th, then across Randalls Island, serving LGA, then via the Whitestone Expy median to Whitestone.

(V) runs from Abingdon Sq, via 10 Av/Riverside South, then 79 St Crosstown, to Northern Blvd, then via a viaduct over I-278, then merging with the (H) under LGA, then to Bayside

Northern is 3 tracks, for <T><V> or <G><V> trains.

North Queens+Whitestone is 2 tracks. Bayside is 3 tracks for <V> trains.

LIE:

peep my (EE) proposal from earlier

Jewel:

maybe: (R) runs to Queens College, (M) runs to South Forest Hills (Under 71st)

Union Tpke: my northern local ((T) or (G)) runs to fresh meadows via main st and 73 av, so that serves that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.