Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

On 5/23/2020 at 7:39 AM, EvilMonologue said:

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the  from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

The question is "how". No wide road connects both 3rd and 2nd, and whenever old subway lines did connections like this (like the 8th Av line in Greenwich) they literally blasted new avenues through properties to do it. Even the bored curve at 125 St, which is not very shallow, will require acquiring corner properties.

[Collin]

There's more that can be done to reduce the impact of track maintenance in the subway.  I saw something on twitter that was about the .  Service often gets replaced by shuttle buses during construction because it's only a 2 track line and the current signaling system is uni-directional, so single tracking isn't possible on a large scale.  CBTC signals can be bi-directional, so with the addition of a full crossover at Bergen Street, the line would have 3 zones where single tracking could be done during overnight 20 minute headways.  

CBTC alone is not enough though.  Flagging rules need to be looked at to allow faster service in the single tracked area, or it just doesn't work.  I've mentioned before that physical barriers could be installed in some locations to separate the tracks.  I doubt it would go over well in the union to suggest increasing speeds without additional safety measures.  

This should be implemented on any 2 track line where it isn't already.

For 4 track lines, I have a different idea.  In this scenario, Track 1 = southbound local, Track 2 = southbound express, Track 3 = northbound express, and Track 4 = southbound local.  In normal late night service, 1 and 4 are active, while 2 and 3 are unused.  To access 1 or 4 for work, a directional station bypass service change is typically used.  If track 1 is out, southbound trains would run express on track 2, and northbound trains would run local on track 4.  Track 3 would not be used.  This means the active tracks are not adjacent.  I think it might be preferable if the active tracks were adjacent, allowing work to take place on two adjacent tracks at once.  That means in the same scenario, southbound trains would run express on track 3, even though that's actually the northbound express track.  Northbound trains would still run local on track 4.  If it's planned to always work on the two adjacent tracks at the same time, then the barriers I mentioned above would only need to be installed between the two express tracks.

[mrsman]

6 hours ago, Collin said:

There's more that can be done to reduce the impact of track maintenance in the subway.  I saw something on twitter that was about the .  Service often gets replaced by shuttle buses during construction because it's only a 2 track line and the current signaling system is uni-directional, so single tracking isn't possible on a large scale.  CBTC signals can be bi-directional, so with the addition of a full crossover at Bergen Street, the line would have 3 zones where single tracking could be done during overnight 20 minute headways.  

CBTC alone is not enough though.  Flagging rules need to be looked at to allow faster service in the single tracked area, or it just doesn't work.  I've mentioned before that physical barriers could be installed in some locations to separate the tracks.  I doubt it would go over well in the union to suggest increasing speeds without additional safety measures.  

This should be implemented on any 2 track line where it isn't already.

For 4 track lines, I have a different idea.  In this scenario, Track 1 = southbound local, Track 2 = southbound express, Track 3 = northbound express, and Track 4 = southbound local.  In normal late night service, 1 and 4 are active, while 2 and 3 are unused.  To access 1 or 4 for work, a directional station bypass service change is typically used.  If track 1 is out, southbound trains would run express on track 2, and northbound trains would run local on track 4.  Track 3 would not be used.  This means the active tracks are not adjacent.  I think it might be preferable if the active tracks were adjacent, allowing work to take place on two adjacent tracks at once.  That means in the same scenario, southbound trains would run express on track 3, even though that's actually the northbound express track.  Northbound trains would still run local on track 4.  If it's planned to always work on the two adjacent tracks at the same time, then the barriers I mentioned above would only need to be installed between the two express tracks.

That might be a feasible way for doing work like adding switches between parallel express and local tracks.  The only qn is whether the signals allow for running trains in the reverse direction.

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, mrsman said:

That might be a feasible way for doing work like adding switches between parallel express and local tracks.  The only qn is whether the signals allow for running trains in the reverse direction.

If you couldn't, you could just run a one-track shuttle back and forth on the segment that is only one track. It'd probably be easier to do, actually.

That being said, I am pretty positive they also use shutdowns to do other things they can squeeze into the timeframe, which is why generally older systems don't resort to single tracking.

[Collin]

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

That might be a feasible way for doing work like adding switches between parallel express and local tracks.  The only qn is whether the signals allow for running trains in the reverse direction.

My understanding is that with fixed block signaling, a track must have wayside signals in both directions to allow trains to run in the reverse direction, and that most subway tracks are not bidirectionally signaled, the exception being the center track on 3 track lines.  With CBTC, I believe it is much less costly to have the signals allow for reverse running.

[bobtehpanda]

Wrote a blog post to illustrate the differences in capacity between different types of transit vehicles and layout: https://queenstransit.wordpress.com/2020/05/28/capacity-of-transit-vehicles/

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

Alright, here's my line, the . 

Northern Terminal: Belmont Park

Southern Terminal: Canarsie - Rockway Pkwy

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

Belmont Park   LIRR

218 St 

212 St 

Francis Lewis Blvd  

197 St  

188 St

179 St

169 St

Parsons Blvd  

Sutphin Blvd  

121 St  

111 St

104 St

Woodhaven Blvd  

85 St - Forest Pkwy

75 St - Elderts Ln  

Cypress Hills

Crescent St  

Norwood Ave  

Cleveland Street

Van Siclen Av  

Alabama Av  

Atlantic Avenue  LIRR

Sutter Avenue  

Livonia Avenue  

New Lots Avenue  

East 105th Street

Canarsie - Rockaway Pkwy

 

 

 

 

[engineerboy6561]

52 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

Alright, here's my line, the . 

Northern Terminal: Belmont Park

Southern Terminal: Canarsie - Rockway Pkwy

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

Belmont Park   LIRR

218 St 

212 St 

Francis Lewis Blvd  

197 St  

188 St

179 St

169 St

Parsons Blvd  

Sutphin Blvd  

121 St  

111 St

104 St

Woodhaven Blvd  

85 St - Forest Pkwy

75 St - Elderts Ln  

Cypress Hills

Crescent St  

Norwood Ave  

Cleveland Street

Van Siclen Av  

Alabama Av  

Atlantic Avenue  LIRR

Sutter Avenue  

Livonia Avenue  

New Lots Avenue  

East 105th Street

Canarsie - Rockaway Pkwy

I'm not sure that actually makes a ton of sense to run, though. I agree with extending the  out to Springfield (not sure if Belmont Pk makes the most sense given the turn at Springfield Blvd that would require, and the fact that you wouldn't have much ridership to Belmont Park outside occasional race days. Through-routing trains from Hillside onto Jamaica would be an interesting option as part of a larger plan to expand service to southeastern Queens, but then turning that down to Canarsie doesn't make much sense (also doing that limits tph from Canarsie to Manhattan to 15 max).

Edited May 29, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[CenSin]

On 5/25/2020 at 3:30 PM, bobtehpanda said:

On 5/23/2020 at 10:39 AM, EvilMonologue said:

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the  from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

The question is "how". No wide road connects both 3rd and 2nd, and whenever old subway lines did connections like this (like the 8th Av line in Greenwich) they literally blasted new avenues through properties to do it. Even the bored curve at 125 St, which is not very shallow, will require acquiring corner properties.

East 66 Street is a wide road that connects 2 Avenue and 3 Avenue.

East 36~37 Streets have a lot of undeveloped land between 2 Avenue and 3 Avenue to minimize surface disruption.

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

1 hour ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I'm not sure that actually makes a ton of sense to run, though. I agree with extending the  out to Springfield (not sure if Belmont Pk makes the most sense given the turn at Springfield Blvd that would require, and the fact that you wouldn't have much ridership to Belmont Park outside occasional race days. Through-routing trains from Hillside onto Jamaica would be an interesting option as part of a larger plan to expand service to southeastern Queens, but then turning that down to Canarsie doesn't make much sense (also doing that limits tph from Canarsie to Manhattan to 15 max).

Yeah, I haven't fully developed the plan yet, but I do have another line I want to plan, the revised !

Northern Terminal: Times Square - 42nd Street

Southern Terminal: JFK Airport

NOTE: This Line runs along the 7 for a bit, but uses a lower level platform and tracks

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

1. Times Square - 42 St    (Platform 2 levels down from  ) 
2. 5 Av  
3. Grand Central - 42 St  MNRR
4. Vernon Blvd LIRR, walk to  
5. 21 St - Van Alst  
6. Court Square
7. Queensboro Plaza  
8. Astoria Blvd  
9. Astoria - Ditmars Blvd  
10. Steinway St
11. 21 Av
12. LaGuardia Airport 
13. LaGuardia Plaza
14. Gillmore St
15. Northern Blvd
16. 106 St
17. 111 St  
18. 50 Av
19. Long Island Expy
20. 67 Av
21. 69 Av
22. Forest Hills - 71 Av   LIRR
23. 75 Av  
24. Kew Gardens - Union Tpke   LIRR
25. Briarwood  
26. Jamaica - Van Wyck  
27. Van Wyck Expy  LIRR
28. Liberty Av
29. 109 Av
30. Linden Blvd
31. Rockaway Blvd
32. S Conduit Av
33. JFK Airport (walk to Airtrain)

 

 

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I'm not sure that actually makes a ton of sense to run, though. I agree with extending the  out to Springfield (not sure if Belmont Pk makes the most sense given the turn at Springfield Blvd that would require, and the fact that you wouldn't have much ridership to Belmont Park outside occasional race days. Through-routing trains from Hillside onto Jamaica would be an interesting option as part of a larger plan to expand service to southeastern Queens, but then turning that down to Canarsie doesn't make much sense (also doing that limits tph from Canarsie to Manhattan to 15 max).

But wouldn't 15 tph be a good thing considering the closure of the ? Maybe when the closure ends, this train could be cut to Broadway Junction.

[CenSin]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

On 5/25/2020 at 3:30 PM, bobtehpanda said:

On 5/23/2020 at 10:39 AM, EvilMonologue said:

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the  from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

The question is "how". No wide road connects both 3rd and 2nd, and whenever old subway lines did connections like this (like the 8th Av line in Greenwich) they literally blasted new avenues through properties to do it. Even the bored curve at 125 St, which is not very shallow, will require acquiring corner properties.

East 66 Street is a wide road that connects 2 Avenue and 3 Avenue.

The way the tunnel caverns are positioned though, precludes swinging the mainline over to 3 Avenue via East 66 Street. If such an alignment is desired, it would have to connect to the lower level of the 72 Street station. But the 3 Avenue portion could be above the 63 Street and 60 Street tunnels.

[bobtehpanda]

10 hours ago, CenSin said:

East 66 Street is a wide road that connects 2 Avenue and 3 Avenue.

East 36~37 Streets have a lot of undeveloped land between 2 Avenue and 3 Avenue to minimize surface disruption.

E 66 St is not wide enough to have the entire curve of the subway be a reasonable radius and stay within the footprint of the street, though. 

I would hardly call digging under or around the Queens-Midtown Tunnel approaches not disruptive to the surface.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

E 66 St is not wide enough to have the entire curve of the subway be a reasonable radius and stay within the footprint of the street, though.

It doesn’t have to dodge everything, just avoid most of the private property above. The 63 Street/2 Avenue connection doesn’t even try to avoid tunneling under private property. If the challenge is not too great, might just be better to weigh this issue less when deciding where to put a curve. But I’m not familiar with the challenges plaguing 2 Avenue. Most of the noise raised during its construction was about station entrances and station cavern excavation endangering the ancient building foundations. In a later plan pertaining to the 125 Street/2 Avenue curve, the MTA managed to realign the tunnel to avoid all private property; obviously they thought the redesign effort was worth it, but I’m not aware of the reasons.

[bobtehpanda]

2 minutes ago, CenSin said:

It doesn’t have to dodge everything, just avoid most of the private property above. The 63 Street/2 Avenue connection doesn’t even try to avoid tunneling under private property. If the challenge is not too great, might just be better to weigh this issue less when deciding where to put a curve. But I’m not familiar with the challenges plaguing 2 Avenue. Most of the noise raised during its construction was about station entrances and station cavern excavation endangering the ancient building foundations. In a later plan pertaining to the 125 Street/2 Avenue curve, the MTA managed to realign the tunnel to avoid all private property; obviously they thought the redesign effort was worth it, but I’m not aware of the reasons.

The reason why you would want to avoid tunneling under private property is that it introduces the risk of changing ground settlement and shifting foundations. Buildings are not designed with shifting their foundations in mind, and severe enough shifting can cause foundations to crack and buildings to start sinking into the ground. Once that happens the MTA opens itself to all sorts of liability suits because it's pretty obvious the subway construction would've been a direct cause.

It's worth noting that 63 St's turnouts can get away with this, because the 63 St tunnel is extremely deep underground. Lex-63 is very deep, and the tunnels go even deeper to go under the East River; the turnouts are safely dozens of feet below where the Manhattan bedrock starts. This would generally not be true for a Second/Third Av north-south line, particularly if you want to do it cut and cover.

As a point to how high and costly this liability could be, one of the main engineering justifications for ESA being in a deep pit is that lower-level GCT utilization would've required massive disruption to the existing Park Av tunnels and would have required underpinning dozens of parcels in some of the most expensive property in the city. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but the risk is still there.

[Jsunflyguy]

On 5/28/2020 at 4:41 PM, Collin said:

My understanding is that with fixed block signaling, a track must have wayside signals in both directions to allow trains to run in the reverse direction, and that most subway tracks are not bidirectionally signaled, the exception being the center track on 3 track lines.  With CBTC, I believe it is much less costly to have the signals allow for reverse running.

This isn't the case, exclusive use shuttles do get run on tracks that are not reverse signalled. Trains proceeding in the unsignalled direction have an absolute block, meaning they can be the only train between two nominated points with this authority being granted by a Baton (or possibly the directive of a TSS at each point, not quite sure about that). CBTC would make it easier to set this up anywhere, but the problem is more of an operational one, using the Crosstown for an example the last Southbound location to turn a train is Bedford Nostrand. Beyond this point you are limited to single train operation which starts getting into 30+ minute headways per direction (in addition to possibly needing to pin stop arms and other unusual signal alterations).

[Around the Horn]

9 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

 CBTC would make it easier to set this up anywhere, but the problem is more of an operational one, using the Crosstown for an example the last Southbound location to turn a train is Bedford Nostrand. Beyond this point you are limited to single train operation which starts getting into 30+ minute headways per direction (in addition to possibly needing to pin stop arms and other unusual signal alterations).

This is where not installing a crossover between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Fulton Street bit them in the ass.

[CenSin]

12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The reason why you would want to avoid tunneling under private property is that it introduces the risk of changing ground settlement and shifting foundations. Buildings are not designed with shifting their foundations in mind, and severe enough shifting can cause foundations to crack and buildings to start sinking into the ground. Once that happens the MTA opens itself to all sorts of liability suits because it's pretty obvious the subway construction would've been a direct cause.

It's worth noting that 63 St's turnouts can get away with this, because the 63 St tunnel is extremely deep underground. Lex-63 is very deep, and the tunnels go even deeper to go under the East River; the turnouts are safely dozens of feet below where the Manhattan bedrock starts. This would generally not be true for a Second/Third Av north-south line, particularly if you want to do it cut and cover.

So this changes:

20 hours ago, CenSin said:

If such an alignment is desired, it would have to connect to the lower level of the 72 Street station. But the 3 Avenue portion could be above the 63 Street and 60 Street tunnels.

to this:

Quote

If such an alignment is desired, it would have to connect to the lower level of the 72 Street station. The 3 Avenue portion would be below the 63 Street and 60 Street tunnels, but rise up closer to the street level from 60 Street to 53 Street.

Of course, that depends on whether the bedrock profile is similar to what’s found at 63 Street.

[Trainmaster5]

Been trying to get some perspective on this Second vs Third Avenue alignment in the 60s neighborhood. Where is the LIRR trackage located in that vicinity? Trying to get the big picture on this. Carry on.

[Collin]

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

This is where not installing a crossover between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Fulton Street bit them in the ass.

Bergen Street has a single crossover, but it is not a full diamond crossover.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Been trying to get some perspective on this Second vs Third Avenue alignment in the 60s neighborhood. Where is the LIRR trackage located in that vicinity? Trying to get the big picture on this. Carry on.

If I’m not mistaken, the LIRR trackage turns on 2nd Avenue on 63rd Street and and then around 55th it 57th Street, the LIRR tracks are beneath the Existing Metro North Tracks. These tracks are also going beneath the 60th Street tubes and Lexington. My only reference as to how I know this is the track map that Vanshnookenraggen made some time back:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I’m not mistaken, the LIRR trackage turns on 2nd Avenue on 63rd Street and and then around 55th it 57th Street, the LIRR tracks are beneath the Existing Metro North Tracks. These tracks are also going beneath the 60th Street tubes and Lexington. My only reference as to how I know this is the track map that Vanshnookenraggen made some time back:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf

The topology may be correct, but keep in mind the track map is not 100% accurate with regards to scaling and relative positioning of the elements. Take the Broadway switches north of 34 Street–Herald Square for example. Those are a little further north than the diagram would lead one to believe. The representation of the curves and switches around the Coney Island area are also somewhat distorted. That switch connecting the northbound West End () track to the yard from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue a left-handed switch and not a right-handed switch as depicted in the diagram.

Edited May 30, 2020 by CenSin

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Been trying to get some perspective on this Second vs Third Avenue alignment in the 60s neighborhood. Where is the LIRR trackage located in that vicinity? Trying to get the big picture on this. Carry on.

 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I’m not mistaken, the LIRR trackage turns on 2nd Avenue on 63rd Street and and then around 55th it 57th Street, the LIRR tracks are beneath the Existing Metro North Tracks. These tracks are also going beneath the 60th Street tubes and Lexington. My only reference as to how I know this is the track map that Vanshnookenraggen made some time back:

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf

 

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

The topology may be correct, but keep in mind the track map is not 100% accurate with regards to scaling and relative positioning of the elements. Take the Broadway switches north of 34 Street–Herald Square for example. Those are a little further north than the diagram would lead one to believe. The representation of the curves and switches around the Coney Island area are also somewhat distorted. That switch connecting the northbound West End () track to the yard from Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue a left-handed switch and not a right-handed switch as depicted in the diagram.

East Side Access is under Park.

Edited May 31, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Trainmaster5]

25 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

 

East Side Access is under Park.

I got that part.  What I'm trying to figure out is how would one locate the SAS around/through the area and swing it west to Third or east towards the waterfront to head south down to the Lower East Side and Alphabet City ? The logistics  is my question. I personally think that it's in the realm of fantasy to think that anything will ever happen below 63rd Street and I don't hold out much hope that Phase 2 will be completed as designed . When it comes to subway projects in my lifetime most end up on the cutting room floor.  Just my opinion.  Carry on.

[bobtehpanda]

24 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I got that part.  What I'm trying to figure out is how would one locate the SAS around/through the area and swing it west to Third or east towards the waterfront to head south down to the Lower East Side and Alphabet City ? The logistics  is my question. I personally think that it's in the realm of fantasy to think that anything will ever happen below 63rd Street and I don't hold out much hope that Phase 2 will be completed as designed . When it comes to subway projects in my lifetime most end up on the cutting room floor.  Just my opinion.  Carry on.

Gotcha. I think we're on the same page; I don't think there is a way to get the subway off of Second (either to Third, or east to Alphabet City). The latter has been studied and dismissed in every single iteration of the project since the '70s. 

I get your pessimism, but this is also the proposals thread, a place where people are specifically supposed to vent ideas that will most likely never happen. Personally rather than the lower half of Second Avenue I think we should just link East Side Access to Atlantic via Downtown; the entire reason SAS Phase III and IV even makes sense is because ESA is about to dump people into GCT with only one overcrowded train line to get downtown, but if that's the problem then a better solution would be to bring those trains downtown rather than make people transfer for no reason.

Edited May 31, 2020 by bobtehpanda