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

I would also prefer to use electric rolling stock over diesel.  While it would require the installation of wires, it would allow for faster service and be more quiet when running in residential areas.  I think all lines should be separated from traffic when possible, and from looking at the map, it is possible in many locations.  Otherwise it isn't really better than SBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2020 at 2:49 AM, bobtehpanda said:

WTC is a two track platform with no tail tracks. It currently struggles with the (E) but that's partially because of the nasty Canal St merge. You'd have to get the (C) out of the way to even get close to 18.

To put this in perspective, New South Ferry is also a two-track station with no tail tracks, and IIRC it was stated to have a capacity of 24TPH.

WTC (E) honestly...isn't that bad. It's a stub, but you could (esp. post-CBTC) probably get >>20tph out of it, if we use 8 Av (L) and SF as our reference points. 

The issue with interlining 36 St is twofold. The first problem is that it eliminates any incentive to stay on the express beyond Roosevelt -- (M) riders can use the (F) and (K) riders can use the (E). The (V) worked largely by giving ridership beyond Roosevelt a one seat ride across the peak load points into the CBD (thus relieving the (E)) and picking up nontrivial LIC-6th Ave ridership that used to use the (F). Very, very few people through rode beyond Roosevelt when the express was an alt for their destination. 

Second problem is, of course, ops. I don't think I need to explain just how garbage 59 St is. Its peak throughput is about 43tph across two tracks. Imagine running it at 50-60tph. It's simply an operational non-starter. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Collin said:

I would also prefer to use electric rolling stock over diesel.  While it would require the installation of wires, it would allow for faster service and be more quiet when running in residential areas.  I think all lines should be separated from traffic when possible, and from looking at the map, it is possible in many locations.  Otherwise it isn't really better than SBS.

True. New plan:

(V)(K)(X)(Y) runs Siemens S70

(H) runs Siemens Avenio

Share this post


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

The city is already trying that with the BQX, even thought that's a streetcar. 

I wasn't going to share this so early, but 2 Streetcar/LRT Lines could work in NY in my opinion. One would run along Main Street and follow the Q44, and the other would be the BQX Truncated from Astoria to Williamsburg. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ofAQaSBt3v6LocvLBLVSP5xzui0_OYP3&usp=sharing

I really like this plan. What is the rolling stock on these lines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Thanks. I didn’t think about the rolling stock that would use this though.

I meant would it be DMUs or would the line be electrified.

Also, why not route the BxQX via the Whitestone Bridge?

Share this post


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

Mostly streetcars, except when on streets with bus lanes, where the bus lane becomes a streetcar/bus lane

Thoughts on the plan?

Why don’t you have the lines on Cross Island Pkwy linking up by the Whitestone or in Briarwood on Hillside or at the LIRR?

Also, why not have your Merrick line link up in Briarwood or either LIRR station?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Again, having so many trains merge at 36th Street is a recipe for disaster. By having all expresses to 63rd and all locals to 53rd you will significantly increase capacity by balancing ridership loads. Riders who want the express get the less attractive 63rd Street corridor, while those who want the local get the more attractive 53rd Street corridor.

But then you’d be forcing anyone who wants the 6th Avenue Line to backtrack to the already overcrowded Roosevelt Ave stop. Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station, which would relieve Roosevelt, those riders transferring at Woodhaven will be replaced by local riders who have to backtrack. Maybe not quite as many as those who currently transfer cross-platform from local to express at Roosevelt, but do we really need to force folks to backtrack? Now, if 36th St was designed to easily be converted into an express station (like Woodhaven), then this wouldn’t be an issue, but it wasn’t designed that way.

9 hours ago, Theli11 said:

My only real problem with this is the (M) train on 63 St merging at 36 St. That's why I think 8th Av should run local and 6th Av run express. It's the only real simple way to do this. We don't really have to keep Forest Hills as a terminal anymore, we can have 2 terminals at the Jamaica Stations. or even switch (E) and (F) terminals, to avoid another nasty merge at Kew Gardens. the (M) train can run to JC and terminate there along with the (F).

Can’t the 6th Avenue trains run local and the 8th Avenue trains express? But even then, if you want the 8th Avenue Line, you’d have to backtrack to Roosevelt to get it. Is that really worth doing? 

As for locals past Forest Hills, it seems like any time a local was extended past Forest Hills, it was met with low ridership and protests from the community. That’s why the (R) to 179 didn’t last long. And JC can only turn 12 tph, so you can’t even run every (F) train to JC, let alone running both the (F) and (M) there.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you commit to taking Broadway trains off QBL, and commit that all QBL trains will serve only 6th and 8th Aves there are three options for QBL:

1) Deinterline with QBL express to 63-6Ave and QBL local to 53-8 Ave

2) deinterline with QBL express to 53-8Ave and QBL local to 63-6 Ave

3) A 36 St merge with (E)(F) express and (K)(M) local, all 8 Ave trains using 53 and all 6 Ave trains using 63.

It is true that there would be some operational problems with the 36 St merge, but it does mean that every QBL station from 36 St east will have access to both 8th and 6th.

 

If one were to deinterline QBL, between 1) and 2), 1) is preferred.  The customers boarding at any of the local stations from 36 St to Grand Ave do not have to backtrack to Roosevelt at all.  They would have direct access to 8th Ave, a transfer at Lexington/53 to (6) (and a future SAS service) , and a transfer to 6th Ave services (B) and (D) at 7th Avenue.  Other transfers can be provided as well.  I support a Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza transfer to make for an easier transfer to Broadway local trains.   The QBL express will directly service 6th Avenue, have a cross-platform transfer to Broadway exp trains at Lexington/63rd, hopefully have a better transfer to (4)(5)(6) and Broadway locals.  It is true though that QBL exp trains do not have an easy transfer to 8th Ave until W4, but at least north of 42nd, the stops along 8th Ave aren't too far from the Broadway BMT stops (within an avenue).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume if Broadway trains were removed from QB, the (N) would go to 96th at all times and the (R) would go to Astoria.  The problem with that is once Phase 3 opens and (T) service starts, fewer trains can go from 2nd Avenue to Broadway, so Broadway express service has to be cut unless there's another place to send those trains.

I had another idea regarding the (A)(C)(E) merges.  If the (A) and (E) both run the same tph and the schedules are synced properly, the (C) can easily fit into the gaps to merge with both without having to hold.  I don't know if they're set up that way now, but it's definitely something that could be looked into to improve service without significant capital spending.  I don't like any de-interlining plan that would cut all upper level service to 50th Street.  It forces an indirect transfer which I think would be hard for less experienced subway riders to understand.  It could be possible to de-interline CPW with all express service going to 8th and all local service going to 6th, but the services on Concourse and 8th above 145th would need to be moved around.  Honestly, I just prefer it the way it is, and I think most non-railfans would too, but if it became critical to increase the number of trains there, it would make more sense to de-interline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Collin said:

I had another idea regarding the (A)(C)(E) merges.  If the (A) and (E) both run the same tph and the schedules are synced properly, the (C) can easily fit into the gaps to merge with both without having to hold.  I don't know if they're set up that way now, but it's definitely something that could be looked into to improve service without significant capital spending.  I don't like any de-interlining plan that would cut all upper level service to 50th Street.  It forces an indirect transfer which I think would be hard for less experienced subway riders to understand.  It could be possible to de-interline CPW with all express service going to 8th and all local service going to 6th, but the services on Concourse and 8th above 145th would need to be moved around.  Honestly, I just prefer it the way it is, and I think most non-railfans would too, but if it became critical to increase the number of trains there, it would make more sense to de-interline.

I think more people would like a more fluid way to go down 8th Avenue. Also, syncing schedules properly, would mean that there's 0 room for error, and one error can make the whole line shit. 59 St is the literal beginning of most bottlenecks. If a (D) train gets held in the station by a (B) infront of it due to them both going into 59 at the same time, then it'll be held in the station for 2-3 minutes. Now, say that later down the route, the (D) train goes onto the DeKalb, and the schedules were made for (D) trains not to intersect with (N) trains. [and the dispatchers at Dekalb isn't as shitty and knows it's a (D) train] now have to make the (D) train run first, due to the fact it's Behind schedule, making the (N) train wait. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Collin said:

I assume if Broadway trains were removed from QB, the (N) would go to 96th at all times and the (R) would go to Astoria.  The problem with that is once Phase 3 opens and (T) service starts, fewer trains can go from 2nd Avenue to Broadway, so Broadway express service has to be cut unless there's another place to send those trains.

I had another idea regarding the (A)(C)(E) merges.  If the (A) and (E) both run the same tph and the schedules are synced properly, the (C) can easily fit into the gaps to merge with both without having to hold.  I don't know if they're set up that way now, but it's definitely something that could be looked into to improve service without significant capital spending.  I don't like any de-interlining plan that would cut all upper level service to 50th Street.  It forces an indirect transfer which I think would be hard for less experienced subway riders to understand.  It could be possible to de-interline CPW with all express service going to 8th and all local service going to 6th, but the services on Concourse and 8th above 145th would need to be moved around.  Honestly, I just prefer it the way it is, and I think most non-railfans would too, but if it became critical to increase the number of trains there, it would make more sense to de-interline.

The problem is not what CPW riders want, the problem is that CPW needs to be deinterlined to make room for more 53rd St trains, and combined with piping down trains only to53rd and 63rd it allows 60th to go into Astoria uninterrupted. If the (R) gets taken off QBL something has to replace it, and this is the only way to make room that would be helpful to most commuters (and no, extending the (G) would not be helpful to most commuters)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the problem is what CPW riders want.  The transit system is there to serve everyone.  Not just railfans.  Sometimes you have to trade some efficiency in order to have a service pattern that people like.  One of the unique things about the New York City Subway compared to other networks is it's ability to interline trains.  It provides more one seat rides to more destinations than anywhere else.  Why throw that away?  I'm not saying that nothing should be de-interlined.  Broadway definitely should, and maybe CPW, but not everywhere needs it or should have it done.

My idea for a de-interlined CPW is:

(A) current service pattern

(B) current service pattern

(C) Norwood 205th Street, concourse express (rush hour peak direction), CPW express, switch to 8th Ave local at 50th Street.  Trains lengthened to 10 cars.

(D) 168th Street, CPW local, then current service pattern.

(D) serves Concourse overnight and (C) does not operate.

This eliminates the merges at 59th Street, but preserves local service to 50th Street.  The (C) would still merge with the (E) at 42nd Street.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

@Collin if you’re concerned about 50th Street losing upper level Local service, then what do you think of the idea of extending its platforms, giving it a layout similar to Nostrand Avenue?

No need to spend capital $ on that. 42nd and 59th are close by. As is 7/53.

Share this post


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

No need to spend capital $ on that. 42nd and 59th are close by. As is 7/53.

50th Street isn't that important, you also have higher capacity on the (E) if you just run the (C) express. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Collin said:

I assume if Broadway trains were removed from QB, the (N) would go to 96th at all times and the (R) would go to Astoria.  The problem with that is once Phase 3 opens and (T) service starts, fewer trains can go from 2nd Avenue to Broadway, so Broadway express service has to be cut unless there's another place to send those trains.

Theres 3 solutions that I see around this. 
 

1) ReThink SAS Phase 3. It’s current design would force a bottleneck at 63rd Street. An idea could be as wild as making a bypass tunnel under 3rd Avenue that goes to the Bronx with provisions near 57th for a new Manhattan-Queens Tunnel. 
 

2) 57th or Canal Flip. 57th Street would make all SAS service local and all Astoria service express. Canal Flip will send all locals via the Manhattan Bridge and all Expresses via Montague. Nether area preferable in my opinion.

3) Don’t build Phase 3 and connect ESA with Atlantic Terminal instead.

Share this post


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

Theres 3 solutions that I see around this. 
 

1) ReThink SAS Phase 3. It’s current design would force a bottleneck at 63rd Street. An idea could be as wild as making a bypass tunnel under 3rd Avenue that goes to the Bronx with provisions near 57th for a new Manhattan-Queens Tunnel. 
 

2) 57th or Canal Flip. 57th Street would make all SAS service local and all Astoria service express. Canal Flip will send all locals via the Manhattan Bridge and all Expresses via Montague. Nether area preferable in my opinion.

3) Don’t build Phase 3 and connect ESA with Atlantic Terminal instead.

couldn't we make some sort of lower level at 96 St, and Broadway trains all terminate there? by the time Phase 3 happens (maybe 20 years?) it should be able to accommodate the Broadway Lower Level and 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

couldn't we make some sort of lower level at 96 St, and Broadway trains all terminate there? by the time Phase 3 happens (maybe 20 years?) it should be able to accommodate the Broadway Lower Level and 

We could, but I personally don’t like that option and question the feasibility of it. 2 years ago, there was discussion here of making a lower level at 72nd Street. Some people proposed it for Broadway Service. Others on here proposed it for SAS service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Collin said:

Actually, the problem is what CPW riders want.  The transit system is there to serve everyone.  Not just railfans.

CPW riders aren't the only riders in the system, and CPW is far from capacity; Queens riders have a real need for more capacity across the river and this is the only way to get it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

50th Street isn't that important, you also have higher capacity on the (E) if you just run the (C) express. 

The (E) is limited to about 18 tph even with CBTC because it has to share with the (F) on QB, so running the (C) express does nothing for it.

Share this post


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

The (E) is limited to about 18 tph even with CBTC because it has to share with the (F) on QB, so running the (C) express does nothing for it.

Which is where deinterlining Queens Blvd comes into play. You would then run 24 trains per hour along (E) route if you deinterline QBL in some way (all of which involves removing the (R) on Queens Blvd). 

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.